Restrictive Covenants and the Supreme Court
November 11, 2020
Restrictive Covenants and the Supreme Court
For the first time ever, the Supreme Court has decided on an appeal relating to s84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). S84 gives the Upper Tribunal discretion to discharge or modify restrictive covenants where one or more specified grounds are satisfied to enable development of burdened land. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that the threshold to exercise such discretion hadn’t been satisfied and so the primary remedy is an injunction to remove the offending development.
Section 84 powers
Millgate Developments (Millgate) were engaged to build 13 properties for a registered provider of social housing on a plot of undeveloped land. The land was burdened by a covenant that prohibited any use other than for the parking of vehicles. The beneficiary of the covenant was a neighbouring children's hospice, the Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust (the Trust). The Trust objected to the development but Millgate went ahead in order to comply with its s106 agreement which required the provision of social housing as a condition of planning consent for a high-end development being constructed elsewhere. Crucially, the site adjacent to the hospice was not the only potential space for the build.
Millgate argued that the social housing development was in the public interest and relied upon the grant of planning permission in support. Millgate then developed in breach of covenant and only later brought an application under s84 LPA 1925 seeking retrospective modification based on section 84(1)(aa), which gives the Tribunal discretion to discharge or modify a restriction where it impedes a reasonable use of the land in circumstances where either:
1. it does not secure any practical benefit of substantial value or advantage to the beneficiary; or
2. the restriction is contrary to the wider public interest with money being adequate compensation.
The Upper Tribunal accepted that there was practical benefit of substantial value to the Trust in preventing use of the land for any purpose other than parking. In this context, the practical benefit conferred by the covenant was not the ability to use the land for parking but rather protection of the privacy and seclusion of the hospice environment by ensuring that no development could take place. However, the Upper Tribunal held that the second limb of ground 84(1)(aa) was satisfied given the immediate and important need for affordable housing to be made available. Essentially, the public interest in having the affordable housing was more important than keeping the land undeveloped.
Court of Appeal approach
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Upper Tribunal, an important point being that Millgate acted in flagrant disregard for the covenant, in full knowledge of its existence and without going through the proper process provided for by s84.
They made it clear that the existence of planning permission did not mean that there had been an objective assessment of public interest – this still had to be assessed within the parameters provided for by section 84. Millgate had deliberately circumvented the proper procedures for testing the covenants by failing to apply to the Upper Tribunal prior to building (the court did not go so far as to rule out any possibility of applying for modification retrospectively in less clear circumstances).
In a decision handed down on 6 November 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Lord Burrows, who gave the leading judgment, referred to "two omitted factors" which the Upper Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider. These were:
1. Had Millgate respected the rights of the Trust by applying for planning permission to develop an alternative plot within its land bank (which did not benefit from the covenant), then an application to modify under s84 would not have been required. The entire dispute could reasonably have been avoided i.e. modification was not necessary to deliver the public benefit advanced by Millgate.
2. Had Millgate respected the rights of the Trust by applying under s84 before starting to build, it is likely that Millgate would not have been able to satisfy the "contrary to public interest" limb of section 84(1)(aa). This is because Millgate would have been met with the objection that planning permission would be granted for affordable housing on alternative unencumbered land so that the upholding of the restriction would not be contrary to the public interest.
The Supreme Court therefore held that it follows that the effect of Millgate's cynical breach of covenant was to fundamentally alter the position in relation to the public interest.
Conclusion
This case demonstrate the importance of seeking to discharge any restrictive covenants prior to commencing works and the dim view that courts take where a developer acts in a high-handed or cynical manner.
A decision in favour of Millgate would have set a precedent to enable modification of almost any covenant where the developer can demonstrate a degree of public benefit in its scheme. The Supreme Court decision shows that demonstrating public benefit does not guarantee modification.
The conduct of Millgate has without doubt, had an impact on the Court’s determination of the case. If another developer had applied for modification prior to carrying out the development and if there wasn’t an alternative unburdened plot of land available for use, the outcome may have been much different.
Contact Us
News & Insights
We are delighted to share that Woodstock Legal Services has been shortlisted for Conveyancing Firm of the Year - South of England at the Modern Law Conveyancing Awards 2026 . We are also proud to see Bethany Hudson , one of our Consultant Licensed Conveyancers, shortlisted for Rising Star of the Year. With our head office in Poole, Dorset, we are proud of our roots in the South West and the relationships we have built within the region’s property community. These shortlists recognise both the strength of our Residential Property team and the people behind the scenes who support our clients throughout their property journey. At Woodstock Legal Services, our focus has always been on building a conveyancing service that works for both our clients and our consultants. By bringing together experienced conveyancers with dedicated back-office support and the right infrastructure, we aim to make the process of buying and selling property as straightforward as possible, while giving our lawyers the flexibility and support to deliver excellent client care. Our connection to the South West remains an important part of who we are. Through relationships with local property professionals and organisations such as Poole Property Club , we continue to build connections within the property market while supporting clients across England and Wales. Over the past year, our Residential Property team has continued to grow, supported by investment in our people, processes and technology. Our dedicated back-office teams play an equally important role, helping keep transactions moving so our conveyancers can focus on their clients and the legal work that matters most. Being shortlisted for Conveyancing Firm of the Year in the South of England is a recognition of the collective effort behind our service, from the conveyancers working directly with clients to the teams supporting them behind the scenes. Car Jermyn Managing Director of Woodstock Legal Services, added: " I’m incredibly proud to see Woodstock Legal Services shortlisted for Conveyancing Firm of the Year and Bethany Hudson recognised as a Rising Star. Both awards reflect the quality of our lawyers and the commitment of the wider team supporting them. It’s great to see the work happening across our business recognised, particularly in the South of England, where our roots are firmly established. " A growing modern law firm As we continue to grow, we are always keen to speak with experienced lawyers who want to work differently, be properly supported, and be part of a collaborative community. Behind every successful consultant is the right firm. Click here to see why consultants choose Woodstock.
England's new landlord register launches 15 Dec 2026 under the Renters' Rights Act. Check your regional deadline and avoid fines up to £40,000
Untangling a historic trust, title restriction and finance issues on a £1.45m commercial property sale - a Woodstock case study
Grass and wildfires are spreading across the UK. Find out when an accidental fire becomes negligence, and who could be liable for the resulting damage.
Expert property solicitor Pedro answers questions on auction purchases, refinancing, title splits and multi-unit property investments. Get practical legal guidance.
Invested in a care home, hotel or student flat scheme that collapsed? Learn what an unauthorised Collective Investment Scheme means for you.
Section 114 Notices are already landing. Zoe Turner explains what local authorities can demand under the Renters' Rights Act, and how to prepare.
Using a Lifetime ISA to buy your first home? Bethany Hudson explains how LISA withdrawals work in a property transaction, what to tell us early, and how to avoid costly delays.
What changes under the Renters’ Rights Act affect Welsh landlords? Learn about anti-discrimination rules, occupation contract updates, compliance deadlines and what does not apply in Wales.
