header-logo header-logo

26 November 2020 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Avoiding the stigma of cynical breach

32874
What can we learn from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd, asks Andrew Francis
  • The Supreme Court has just emphasised the importance of the applicant’s conduct in applications to discharge, or modify restrictive covenants under s 84(1) Law of Property Act 1925. What can we learn from the judgment of that Court?

On 6 November 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45, [2020] All ER (D) 37 (Nov).

This article suggests that some lessons can be learnt from that judgment. It concentrates on those lessons and does not set out the facts in any detail. For those, reference can be made to the judgment itself, as well as to the other commentaries on the decision.

In this case the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in November 2018 which had allowed the Trust’s appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UTLC). It had allowed the application by Housing Solutions

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll