Hae Developments Limited v The Croft Ealing & Anor
Decision date: 11 May 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 120 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This case concerned an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge 1955 restrictive covenants that limited 26A/26B Park Hill to a single dwelling so the applicant could build a three‑storey building with basement containing eight flats. The Tribunal found the character of the neighbourhood had materially changed since 1955, that the single‑dwelling covenants were therefore obsolete in so far as they prevented the proposed development, and discharged those covenants while retaining the covenants prohibiting business use and preventing nuisance/annoyance. No compensation was awarded.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The Tribunal applied s.84(1)(a) LPA 1925 to hold that a restrictive covenant preventing flatted development can be discharged where the surrounding neighbourhood has materially changed so that the covenant’s original purpose is superfluous; in assessing grounds (c) and (aa) it required evidence that the covenant actually secured practical benefits to the persons entitled, and concluded the single‑dwelling covenant did not secure such benefits in the present context.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed (non‑bindingly) that planning conditions (privacy screens, obscure glazing, arboricultural measures and parking limits) and existing screening can mitigate concerns about overlooking, light, noise and construction disturbance, and that imperfect valuation evidence based on limited comparables may be of limited weight where the covenant does not protect against the complained‑of disadvantages.