BLB Solicitors
  • +01225 755656
  • enquiries@blbsolicitors.co.uk
BLB Solicitors
  • +01225 755656
  • enquiries@blbsolicitors.co.uk
  • Home
  • Services for You
    • Conveyancing Solicitors
    • Leasehold Solicitors
    • Property Dispute Solicitors
    • Divorce, Family Law and Mediation
    • Lifetime Planning and Wills
    • Probate and Estate Administration
    • Equity Release Solicitors
    • Retirement Property Conveyancing
    • Personal Injury Compensation
    • Medical Negligence Solicitors
  • Services for Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Property Disputes
    • Corporate & Commercial Legal Advice
    • Estate Management Solicitors
  • BLB Solicitors Locations
    • Almondsbury Solicitors
    • Bath Solicitors
    • Bristol Solicitors
    • Bradford on Avon Solicitors
    • Swindon Solicitors
    • Trowbridge Solicitors
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Working for BLB
    • BLB Solicitors – How we work
    • Making Payments to BLB Solicitors
    • Instructing BLB Solicitors
    • Terms of Business
    • Complaints Policy
    • Interest Policy
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Home » Restrictive covenants: ignore them at your peril

Property Dispute Resolution
New apartments with restrictive covenants
Apr 8th, 2019

At BLB Solicitors, our goal is simple – to deliver you clear, practical legal advice and cost-effective solutions. We hope you enjoy exploring our Blog. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, please do contact us.

Restrictive covenants: ignore them at your peril

The Court of Appeal has recently provided a sobering reminder of the importance of not ignoring restrictive covenants, particularly for developers.

Background

The case of Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust –v- Millgate Developments Ltd and others [2018] arose following the purchase of land in 2013 by Millgate Developments Ltd (“Millgate”). Millgate’s land adjoined land owned by Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust (“the Trust”) which had been designated for the building of a children’s hospice. The Trust had a restrictive covenant over the land purchased by Millgate preventing development which overlooked the garden of the proposed hospice.

However, in full knowledge of the restrictive covenant and without approaching the Trust or otherwise applying to release or modify the covenant, Millgate proceeded to develop 13 affordable housing units which overlooked the Trust’s land. The units were subsequently sold to a housing association for social housing use.

Only at that stage did Millgate apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for the restrictive covenant to be released. The Tribunal did decide to release the covenant on the basis that there was significant public interest in ensuring that affordable housing, which of course had already been built, did not go to waste.

Believing that the presence of the residential development reduced the amenity of its hospice facility, the Trust appealed the Tribunal’s decision.

The appeal

Given their full knowledge of the restrictive covenant, the Court of Appeal was particularly unimpressed by Millgate’s behaviour in proceeding with the development without first applying to the Tribunal. Allowing the appeal, they reinstated the covenants. This means that the Trust can now seek an injunction requiring the demolition of the development. The Court is yet to decide, as an alternative to demolition, whether to award damages in lieu of an injunction.

Comment

This case confirms the courts are prepared to take a tough line against developers who wilfully breach a restrictive covenant which limits or prevents development. The case may have been decided differently had the developer made an application to the Tribunal to modify or release the covenants before embarking on the construction work.

The Court of Appeal found there was no good reason why Millgate chose to delay this process. The court also concluded it was not fair for Millgate to argue the covenants should be released “in the public interest”, just because the development was affordable housing. The judges held it was also in the public interest that developers should follow proper procedures to seek the relaxation of the covenant in the first place.

Of course, after taking specialist legal advice, each case must be judged on its own merit. Both the cost of an application to the Tribunal and the associated delay can prove unattractive to developers, but as this case sorely demonstrates, that must be weighed against the potential financial consequences of proceeding regardless.

BLB Solicitors
Request a Call Back

Recent Articles

  • Compensation for tree root damage
  • Profits à prendre: an introduction
  • Do I need planning permission for a fence?
  • I was promised the house: Can you enforce a verbal promise?
  • Can a right of way be removed?

Newsletter Sign-up

* indicates required

Share this article

You may also like...
  • Feb 17th, 2025
    Rights of light explained
    Read Article
  • Mar 3rd, 2025
    I was promised the house: Can you enforce a verbal promise?
    Read Article
View All Related Articles
Get in-touch today
Contact Form

Left Column

Right Column

Centre

 
Sending
  • Bristol Solicitors

    0117 905 5308
  • Bath Solicitors

    01225 462871
  • Bradford on Avon Solicitors

    01225 866541
  • Swindon Solicitors

    01793 615011
  • Trowbridge Solicitors

    01225 755656
  • Almondsbury Solicitors

    0117 905 5308
Authorised & Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 636644)
©2025 BLB Solicitors | Terms | Privacy | Legal