Escaping from restrictive covenants

Quiz Content

not completed
. Harinder buys Green House. She obtains planning permission for a second house in the garden of Green House, despite the fact that this would be in breach of a restrictive covenant.
In what circumstances will it be safe for Harinder to go ahead and build without fearing that someone will bring (successful) proceedings for an injunction?

not completed
. Oliver owns Blackacre, which is subject to restrictive covenants which impede his plans to develop Blackacre. Uncertain as to who the dominant owners are, he takes proceedings under s.84(2) LPA 1925. The court declares Frank, George, Harry, John and Keith to be the dominant owners.
In what circumstances can Oliver go ahead with his development plans?

not completed
. Johnson has bought Greenacres, a small two acre open space (ie about the size of two football pitches) in an otherwise heavily built up area. He has planning permission to develop Greenacres, despite strong opposition from local residents, a few of whom are dominant owners. Greenacres is subject to a restrictive covenant that the land shall be 'an open space uncovered by buildings'. He takes proceedings in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under s.84(1) to discharge the covenant. Which of the four paragraphs offers him the best chance of success?

not completed
. The Diligence Bus Company PLC gets planning permission to establish a depot at a site on Fishlakes Road, Scratchin. The site is in an area where it is Scratchin District Council's policy to grant planning permission for industrial use. There are some houses, and they are the dominant tenements to a restrictive covenant over the proposed depot site which restricts the site to residential use.
Diligence applies to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under s.84(1)(aa) for discharge of the restrictive covenant. Which of the following propositions is correct?

not completed
. Wideacres is a building scheme of 50 houses established in 1900. It is a 'highly desirable' area of Grimtown. Over the last 110 years, the owners (for the time being) have been ruthless in enforcing the restrictive covenants. One of the covenants is (of course) a ban on using the house for any business purposes.
Mahmoud has just bought a house on Wideacres and, to the horror of his neighbours, wants to use the house for his accountancy practice. He has already received five claim forms for an injunction and another 20 solicitors' letters. He complains that he only has 20 clients, so 'I will not be adding to the traffic problems'. He applies to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), under both s.84(1)(c) and s.84(1)(aa), for the relevant covenant to be modified to permit him to use his house for his practice. What is the likely result of these applications?

not completed
. In 1970, Matthew owned two adjoining plots of development land, Westplot and Eastplot. He sold Eastplot to Norman for £19,000. Eastplot had been advertised at £20,000, but Norman secured a reduction of £1,000 when he learned that the conveyance of Eastplot would impose a covenant barring buildings over 50 feet tall. The covenant was annexed to Westplot.
Westplot is now owned by Oswald; Eastplot is owned by Peter. Peter has just obtained an order from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), modifying the height limit to 100 feet. He invoked s.84(1)(aa). The effect of this modification is that the value of Eastplot goes up from £300,000 to £350,000, while the value of Westplot drops from £320,000 to £290,000.
How much compensation will the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) award?

Back to top