Colin Bernard Medley v Ross Mackenzie & Ors
Decision date: 8 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 112 (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 Mr Medley’s s.84 application to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting 12 High Elms so he could replace a bungalow with two houses. The Tribunal discharged the 1967 covenant requiring consent from High Elms Properties Ltd because that company was dissolved, but refused to modify or discharge the remaining 1966 and 1967 covenants, finding they continue to secure practical benefits of substantial advantage (protecting open aspect/limiting over‑development and preserving a listed wall). The application was therefore granted in part only.
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 decision establishes (for these facts) that a covenant requiring consent from a specific company may be discharged where the company has been dissolved and the consent mechanism is therefore obsolete; and that covenants which materially protect the open character of an estate and preserve a listed boundary feature can constitute practical benefits of substantial advantage to beneficiaries such that the Tribunal will not modify them under s.84(1)(aa) and (c).
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: low
The notes record comments suggesting that uncertainty about the applicant’s title to land relied on for a proposed development may properly inform the Tribunal’s discretion (for example to adjourn) rather than the statutory threshold questions, and that concern about incremental precedent (the “thin end of the wedge”) can be relevant when assessing whether covenants confer substantial practical benefits on immediate beneficiaries. These points appear as obiter in the judgment.