89 Holland Park (management) v Hicks [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch)

covenant

89 Holland Park (management) v Hicks [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch) is a Land Law case. Furthermore, it concerns a restrictive covenant running alongside land. 

Facts:

In 89 Holland Park (management) v Hicks [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch), the covenant required the adjoining owner (the purchaser) to obtain the consent of the seller to develop the adjoining land.

Grounds of claim:

  1. The covenant was not binding to successors in title
  2. The Covenant was not binding since it did not touch and concern the seller’s land and was not a restrictive covenant.
  3. The land should not to be unreasonably withheld from planning or development. 

Issue:

Whether or not the purchaser required the consent of the seller to develop the adjoining land. 

Held:

(1) The covenant was binding on successors in title. However, lessees in occupation had the benefit of the covenant. Also, under s.78 of 1925 Act, the land was intended to be benefitted.

(2) It was a restrictive covenant. A covenant which allows an adjoining owner to control use of adjoining land does touch and concern the adjoining owner’s land.

(3) Consent could not be unreasonably withheld. It would have been commercially absurd if the seller could stop the development of the adjoining land for no good reason when it had been sold with the intention to be developed.

Applied: Crest Nicholson Residential v McAllister [2004] 1 WLR 2409

For more information, read our notes and other cases on restrictive covenants

References: [2013] EWHC 391 (Ch), [2013] 2 WLUK 743