Kirsty Crossland & Anor v Keith Anthony Fritchley
Decision date: 22 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 22 (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
The Crosslands sought to implement planning permission for major extensions to Wellfield House but were constrained by a 1998 restrictive covenant benefitting the neighbouring Lodge owned by Mr Fritchley. They amended their case to seek modification under s.84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925, asking for a carve‑out tied to the planning permission and a clause that consent to development not be unreasonably withheld; the Tribunal allowed the application on that basis and recorded the objector's later consent to the proposed clause. The Tribunal treated expert evidence on privacy, overlooking, visual amenity and light as material but noted limitations where an expert had not inspected the Lodge interior.
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 decision as recorded in the notes, a modification under s.84(1)(aa) by means of a tailored carve‑out linked to planning permission (and including a term that consent not be unreasonably withheld) can be an appropriate remedy instead of full discharge where it meets the applicants’ needs and addresses the objector’s interests; expert evidence that omits inspection of relevant parts of the benefiting property is of limited value on issues of overlooking, privacy and internal amenity.
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 notes indicate suggested obiter points that an implied term preventing unreasonable withholding of consent may be an acceptable form of modification where a covenant already contains a consent mechanism, and that site inspection by the Tribunal and parties’ experts is useful for assessing separation, views and amenity impacts.