R v Braintree DC, ex parte Halls
Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; [2000] 80 P&CR 266-279(7)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: CA 1 March 2000. H and his father excercised right to buy the house of which they were tenants from the council, B. District valuer's valuation of the property did not include any allowance for development potential. Conveyance contained a covenant that the property was to be used as a single dwelling-house only. H then obtained plannning permission to erect a further dwelling house within the property''s curtilage and he intended to sell part of the garden to a developer. He requested B's consent to the sale for the purposes of the restrictive covenant. B agreed to release H from the covenant if he paid 90% of the open market value of the plot. H applied for judicial review and court below held that it was not unlawful for B to seek payment for release from covenant. H appealed. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS62793 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 108035-1001 |
CA 1 March 2000. H and his father excercised right to buy the house of which they were tenants from the council, B. District valuer's valuation of the property did not include any allowance for development potential. Conveyance contained a covenant that the property was to be used as a single dwelling-house only. H then obtained plannning permission to erect a further dwelling house within the property''s curtilage and he intended to sell part of the garden to a developer. He requested B's consent to the sale for the purposes of the restrictive covenant. B agreed to release H from the covenant if he paid 90% of the open market value of the plot. H applied for judicial review and court below held that it was not unlawful for B to seek payment for release from covenant. H appealed. Appeal dismissed.