Paul Howard & Ors v Sunita Surana
Decision date: 23 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 248 (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 by purchasers of two estate plots to modify estate covenants to regularise access and houses built after earlier permission and in breach of the 2016 Tribunal conditions (notably a preserved front hedge). The Upper Tribunal found that the completed accesses and larger/relocated houses amounted to a reasonable user and that maintaining the covenant did not secure a substantial practical benefit to the neighbours, so the applicants met s.84(1)(aa) LPA 1925; the Tribunal exercised its discretion to permit modification limited to the constructed permissions and access, while preserving the hedge except where driveways have been created and leaving claims for past breaches intact.
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
Where development carried out in breach nonetheless represents a reasonable user of the land and does not cause greater loss of amenity or impairment of the building scheme than previously permitted development, the covenant can fail the s.84(1)(aa) threshold because it no longer secures a practical benefit of substantial value to the beneficiaries; the Tribunal may, in its discretion, grant a modification to regularise future position so long as it does not absolve past breaches and does not injure remaining objectors.
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 observed that substantial variations to planning permissions occurring after an earlier modification pegged to a particular permission are not what the earlier Tribunal envisaged and may require fresh consideration; it also commented on the general deterrent value of enforcing covenants against deliberate breaches, but treated those considerations as distinguishable on the facts here.