Decision Nº LC-2022-180. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 08-02-2023 , [2023] UKUT 41 (LC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Mark Higgin |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 41 (LC) |
| Date | 08 February 2023 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | LC-2022-180 |
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)
UT Neutral citation number: [2023] UKUT 41 (LC) UTLC Case Numbers: LC-2022-180
Beverley Magistrates Court,
HU17 9EJ
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - Covenant prohibiting use of property for business purposes –
planning permission for beauty salon in garden – whether covenants secure practical benefits
of substantial value or advantage – s.84(1)(aa), (b) and (c), Law of Property Act 1925 –
application dismissed
AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 84 OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
BETWEEN:
RICHARD CHARLES HODGSON (1)
JOANNE MARIE CHANTELLE HODGSON (2) Applicants
-and-
TERENCE COOK (1)
CAROLE COOK (2)
DAVID HOLDEN (3)
Objectors
Re: 7 Larkin Avenue,
Cottingham,
East Yorkshire,
HU16 4BY
Mr Mark Higgin FRICS
Heard on: 20 December 2022
Decision Date: 8 February 2023
Mrs Joanne Hodgson for the applicants
Mr Oliver Shipley, instructed by Andrew Jackson Solicitors LLP, for the objectors
Mr David Holden, representing himself
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
2
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45
George Wimpey Bristol Limited and Gloucestershire Housing Association Limited [2011]
UKUT 91 (LC)
Martin v Lipton [2020] UKUT 8 (LC)
Shephard v Turner [2006] EWCA Civ 8
The Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd & Anor [2018]
EWCA Civ 2679
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
LVT/0009/06/23: 57 Fields Road, Newport
...office. There were no visible signs of commercial business use at the Demised Premises. 56. In Hodgson and another v Cook and others [2023] UKUT 41 (LC), [2023] All ER (D) 54 (Feb) it was noted that a private residence restrictive covenant did not prevent a homeowner working from home on th......