When a Covenant Ceases to Bite

The recent decision in Duncan Grossart v Vikki Ames [2026] UKUT 139 (LC) provides a clear and rather practical reminder of how such matters are approached. The case concerned land at Sturt Farm Barn in Haslemere, subject to a covenant restricting its use to a single dwellinghouse. Notwithstanding that constraint, planning permission had been secured for a scheme of five dwellings, leaving three plots effectively incapable of being delivered.

The applicant therefore turned to section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, inviting the Upper Tribunal to discharge the covenant. The central question was whether the restriction still served any useful purpose. On the facts, it did not. The surrounding area had changed materially, including the introduction of a substantial 132-home development nearby, such that the original rationale for limiting the land to a single dwelling had plainly fallen away.

The Tribunal also considered whether the covenant continued to provide any real benefit to the neighbouring Grade II listed property which enjoyed its protection. Again, the answer was in the negative. The proposed development would not materially affect that property, and whatever benefit the covenant once conferred was no longer of substance.

In those circumstances, the covenant was discharged, and notably without compensation. The Tribunal was satisfied that no practical loss would be suffered by the beneficiary, and there was therefore no justification for any payment.

The decision is a useful illustration of a simple point that is sometimes overlooked in practice. Restrictive covenants are not sacrosanct. Where circumstances have moved on, and where no genuine or valuable benefit remains, the Tribunal will not hesitate to remove them and allow development to proceed.