Developers still find restrictive covenants obstructing new projects

Developers still find restrictive covenants obstructing new projects, even though the underlying purpose of these restrictions has long passed.

Recent decisions demonstrate that the Upper Tribunal may be developing an approach that favours the developer rather than restricts them.

In Ball v Fulton, the Upper Tribunal discharged an obsolete covenant that had been based on an approval right which ceased to operate following the original vendor’s death.

In Newton Poppleford v Preston, the Upper Tribunal modified an existing restriction against the development of a doctors surgery because to insist upon its continuation would cause the building to remain under-utilised without any benefit.

Collectively, these decisions suggest that the courts are now more willing to question whether historical restrictive covenants continue to serve a valid purpose, rather than strictly enforce the original bargain.

Read the full article here:

https://heyor.ca/acxj7D

#RestrictiveCovenants #RealEstateDevelopment #UpperTribunal #LegalDecisions