Image from Google Jackets

In the matter of an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 Tillotson [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: See related article catalogued under the reference L145097Summary: [2008] EWLands LP 56 2006, 06 June 2008. The case turned around whether landlords of expensive houses could oppose the development of an exclusive estate. The Tillotsons were granted planning permission to build an additional house on the land of their current home. However, restrictive covenants limited building to just one house per land. The Tillotsons applied to the Lands Tribunal to reject the covenant as invalid or to amend it to allow the building of the extra house. The neighbours opposed this. The tribunal examined whether the covenants gave benefits of such value to the neighbours that a financial compensation would be inadequate. The tribunal concluded that the estate substantially benefited from the restrictions from the covenants. Therefore, these covenants should be maintained as financial compensation would not be adequate to cover for the losses that would otherwise be incurred. "Held": Application rejected. The tribunal felt that the development could not be allowed as it would weaken the exclusivity of the area.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 144392-1001

See related article catalogued under the reference L145097

[2008] EWLands LP 56 2006, 06 June 2008. The case turned around whether landlords of expensive houses could oppose the development of an exclusive estate. The Tillotsons were granted planning permission to build an additional house on the land of their current home. However, restrictive covenants limited building to just one house per land. The Tillotsons applied to the Lands Tribunal to reject the covenant as invalid or to amend it to allow the building of the extra house. The neighbours opposed this. The tribunal examined whether the covenants gave benefits of such value to the neighbours that a financial compensation would be inadequate. The tribunal concluded that the estate substantially benefited from the restrictions from the covenants. Therefore, these covenants should be maintained as financial compensation would not be adequate to cover for the losses that would otherwise be incurred. "Held": Application rejected. The tribunal felt that the development could not be allowed as it would weaken the exclusivity of the area.