Tega Awinoron & Anor v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Decision date: 22 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 139 (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 appeal concerned an application under s.84 LPA 1925 to modify a restrictive covenant after the applicants altered a shared porch and erected a dividing fence between No 16 (applicants) and council-owned No 18. The Tribunal refused the application, holding it had no jurisdiction to modify under ground (aa) because the covenant continued to secure a practical benefit to the objector and there was no evidence that money would adequately compensate it; the Tribunal's position on ground (a) is internally inconsistent in the judgment text. The county court had already granted an injunction requiring demolition of the works.
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
From the Tribunal's reasoning that can safely be identified, a covenant that continues to secure a practical benefit to the benefitting freeholder (including protection of amenity for its tenants/retained stock) may prevent modification under s.84(1)(aa) where there is no evidence that monetary compensation would be adequate. No broader binding ratio about obsolescence under ground (a) can be safely extracted given the judgment's internal inconsistency.
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 (obiter) that selective enforcement concentrated on properties still owned by the covenantee can sustain the secondary protective purpose of covenants for retained stock; that the applicants' conduct in committing the breach (including erecting a dividing fence and altering shared access) is relevant to the exercise of discretion (referred to as potential "cynical breach"); and that removal of shared access by a dividing fence raises particular enforcement concerns compared with a porch alteration alone.
Warning
The judgment text contains an apparent internal inconsistency about obsolescence: earlier the Tribunal states the covenant "ought not to be deemed obsolete" but the formal determination records no jurisdiction under ground (a) and states it "ought to be deemed obsolete." This makes the precise conclusion on ground (a) difficult to interpret with certainty. The notes record an apparent internal inconsistency in the Tribunal's treatment of obsolescence under ground (a): an earlier statement says the covenant "ought not to be deemed obsolete" while the formal determination records no jurisdiction under ground (a) and states it "ought to be deemed obsolete," making the precise conclusion on ground (a) uncertain.