The Lands Tribunal can order that ‘the costs of any proceedings before it
is incurred by any party shall be paid by any other party’. But, special rules
apply in respect of restrictive covenant applications under s84 LPA 1925,
although it is usual that an unsuccessful objector will not be ordered to
pay the costs of the successful applicant. However, if the objector has
acted unreasonably, or there has been an offer made to settle that has
not been accepted, then costs may be ordered against the unsuccessful
objector. That practice was confirmed in a PD of May 2006.
|
Developers will be well aware of the
jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal – under s84 of the
Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) – to modify or
discharge restrictive covenants that have outgrown
their usefulness. Many a development project has
been saved in this way. However, there is no
guarantee of achieving the desired result, so cases
illustrating the Lands Tribunal’s approach are always
of keen interest. One such case is Re Vince’s
Application.
Laurie Heller reviews a recent case concerning the operation of
s84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925, offering a useful
reminder of the arguments that are regularly made in such cases
Edward Bannister and David Jackson look at a decision
highlighting that insurance may occasionally be avoided by a
careful reading of the covenant in question.
Section 84 LPA 1925 requires a balance to be struck between
the need for development and the rights of persons benefiting
from a restrictive covenant. Christopher Warenius assesses a
case where the extent of a restriction was tested
