Rajarajan Narayanasamy Naidu & Anor v Valerie Morton & Ors
Decision date: 4 August 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 172 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This appeal concerned applications to discharge or modify 1989 restrictive covenants on 52 Beechcroft Manor to allow a three‑storey side extension and ancillary home working. The Tribunal found the covenants were not obsolete and that the business restriction did not prevent ancillary home working, but the building restriction did impede the proposed extension while securing some practical benefit to No. 51 that was not of substantial value. Although ground (aa) could be made out for the building restriction, the Tribunal declined in its discretion to modify or discharge the covenants until planning permission and structural engineering matters were resolved; applicants may reapply after obtaining those consents/details.
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 restrictive covenant is not rendered obsolete without evidence of appreciable change in the neighbourhood since the covenant was imposed; ancillary home working that preserves a single private dwelling is not necessarily impeded by a covenant barring business use; and even where ground (aa) is established, the Tribunal may lawfully refuse to exercise its discretion to modify if outstanding planning or specialist engineering matters could materially affect assessments of injury or compensation.
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 indicated that pre‑application council advice can support the reasonableness of a proposed use but is not determinative absent full planning consent, and that the planning regime can mitigate some protective effects of restrictive covenants; it also noted that decisions are fact‑specific and may not be binding as precedent on neighbouring plots.