Andrew Bruce provides a timely update
- Unattractive conduct does not deny relief under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
- Compensation of £21,000 does not justify a costs award.
In October 2011, Mrs Pauline Hennessey’s home in Great Maplestead was gutted by fire. Rather than re-build a facsimile of the house, Mrs Hennessey decided to construct a larger, somewhat grander property that she would call ‘High View’ on the same location as her previous home. In order to finance this construction, Mrs Hennessey wanted to build two further detached houses in the garden of her property. Having finally obtained planning permission for her construction works in December 2015, Mrs Hennessey then had to deal with the restrictive covenant that burdened her land.
The covenant, which had been imposed in 1971 on Mrs Hennessey’s predecessor-in-title, prohibited the erection of more than a single dwellinghouse on Mrs Hennessey’s land (‘the density restriction’) and required that Mrs Hennessey obtain prior approval of her plans from the beneficiaries of the covenant (‘the consent restriction’). Mrs Hennessey applied to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under
