Great Jackson Street Estates Limited v Manchester City Council

Decision date: 8 August 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 189 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: high

The lessee of 34 Great Jackson Street sought modification of eleven lease covenants under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to enable redevelopment into two residential towers. The Tribunal found no jurisdictional grounds: the covenants were not obsolete, the proposed residential use did not justify modification because the covenants secured substantial non-pecuniary development control, and modification would injure the landlord; it also declined to exercise discretion to intervene. The application was dismissed.

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: high

A covenant is not obsolete merely because neighbourhood use has changed if it still serves a useful purpose, including securing non-pecuniary control over development; in assessing "reasonable use" under ground (aa) the Tribunal evaluates the proposed land use against the development plan and recognises that practical deliverability and development control features of covenants can constitute substantial practical benefit to the landlord.

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 criticised the applicant’s evidence as vague and inconsistent, noted that long-range valuation evidence (e.g. deferring values 60 years) is of limited utility, and observed a general reluctance to disrupt ongoing commercial negotiations between a local authority and a developer.