MDM Civil Engineering Limited v Scott Morgan

Decision date: 10 September 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 347 (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

MDM Civil Engineering applied to vary a 2019 restrictive covenant limiting development to two dwellings on the "Ark" site so as to permit a third dwelling. The Tribunal held that s.84(1)(aa) and (c) were made out: the covenant impeded a reasonable use and secured no practical benefit of substantial value to the beneficiary, and modification would not injure the beneficiary; it exercised its discretion to allow the third dwelling in accordance with planning permission 25/0163/FUL on payment of £37,500 to the beneficiary within three months.

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 applies s.84(1)(aa) to permit modification where a covenant impedes a reasonable use of the land and, on the available evidence, secures no practical benefit of substantial value to the beneficiary; and applies s.84(1)(c) on the basis that loss of a bargaining opportunity to demand a price for release does not, by itself, amount to "injury" for the purposes of that ground.

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 commented that the recent origin of a covenant and the applicant's close connection to the original covenantor are relevant discretionary factors weighing against modification but do not automatically preclude it; it also suggested that unsworn letters and untested statements from a beneficiary carry limited weight.