University of Westminster v President LT
University of Westminster v President LT
- 1998
- All England Law Reports [1998] 3 ALL ER 1014-1024(13) .
CA 15 July 1998. The University of Westminster (W) applied to the LT to discharge or modify user restrictions on its land. There was no response or objections to the notice of application served on those persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions. The LT refused to discharge the restrictions on the basis that if the notice had indicated that the applicants sought to remove all restrictions on user there may have been objections. However, it determined that the restrictions should be modified to allow for general education purposes. W appealed contending inter alia that in the absence of evidence that any potential objector was misled by the notice, the LT was bound to discharge the restrictions. CA held that W had failed to satisfy the LT either, that some reasonable user of the land would be impeded unless the restrictions were wholly discharged or, that the persons entitled to the benefit of restrictions had to be taken to have agreed to the discharge. Appeal dismissed.
DISCHARGE
EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT
GEE V NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
MODIFICATION
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OR MODIFICATION
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
USER RESTRICTIONS
CA 15 July 1998. The University of Westminster (W) applied to the LT to discharge or modify user restrictions on its land. There was no response or objections to the notice of application served on those persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions. The LT refused to discharge the restrictions on the basis that if the notice had indicated that the applicants sought to remove all restrictions on user there may have been objections. However, it determined that the restrictions should be modified to allow for general education purposes. W appealed contending inter alia that in the absence of evidence that any potential objector was misled by the notice, the LT was bound to discharge the restrictions. CA held that W had failed to satisfy the LT either, that some reasonable user of the land would be impeded unless the restrictions were wholly discharged or, that the persons entitled to the benefit of restrictions had to be taken to have agreed to the discharge. Appeal dismissed.
DISCHARGE
EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT
GEE V NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
MODIFICATION
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OR MODIFICATION
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
USER RESTRICTIONS