Preston and Newsom provides comprehensive guidance on the effect, enforcement, modification and removal of covenants restricting the use of freehold land. It also considers user covenants in leases, rentcharges, easements, and other rights.
Explains how the benefit of covenants can pass to new owners and occupiers of benefited land
Explains when new owners and occupiers of registered and unregistered land should comply with restrictive covenants
Explains schemes of mutually enforceable restrictions
Considers the effect of user covenants in rentcharges and easements
Gives practical advice on drafting effective restrictive covenants and schemes
Reviews numerous cases on the meaning of particular covenants
Applies important recent case law on the interpretation of legal documents to covenants
Considers powers of nominated persons to release restrictions and to approve plans
Considers what activities breach a wide variety of typical restrictions
Discusses the merits and risks of asking the court for an injunction
Explains recent legal developments about whether damages can be awarded instead of an injunction and what damages can be awarded
Explains the special court procedures for a universal declaration about whether a covenant continues to be effective; who is affected by it; and whether it prevents a particular project
Explains the power and judicial discretion of the Upper Tribunal to modify or terminate restrictions
Explains who can apply to the Tribunal and who can object
Explains the preliminary and hearing procedures of the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal
Explains the Tribunal’s special procedures in covenant proceedings
Explains how the titles of objectors can be challenged in the Upper Tribunal or in the courts
Considers in detail what sorts of restrictions can be modified in what circumstances
Reviews many Tribunal decisions and explains what compensation can be awarded
Explains how the Tribunal decides whether to award costs in covenant proceedings
Explains the criteria and procedure for appealing Upper Tribunal decisions
Considers other ways in which covenants can be altered, limited, suspended or ended
Has five Appendices containing relevant statutes, procedural rules, practice directions and practice statements
Includes references to a variety of relevant court decisions and statutes in commonwealth jurisdictions
The 10th Edition substantially expands Preston and Newsom’s coverage of restrictive covenants with particular attention to recent cases relating to:
The annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants, especially Crest Nicholson (South) Ltd v McAllister (2004 CA) and Cosmichome Ltd v Southampton City Council (2013 Ch)
Schemes of mutual restrictions, as explained in Whitgift Homes Ltd v Stocks (2001 CA)
Leasehold covenants, as discussed in Williams v Kiley (2004 CA)
Rentcharge covenants, as discussed in Orchard Trading Estate Management Ltd v Johnson Security Ltd (2002, CA)
Covenants under or in conflict with planning, housing and other Acts, e.g. R (Halls) v Braintree District Council (2000, CA)
Recent developments in the law of construing legal documents following ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (1997 HL), for example in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd (2009, HL) and Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd (2012 CA)
Numerous cases on the effect of particular covenants and density restrictions, such as Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd (2004 CA)
Who can approve plans or give permission to depart from restrictions, as discussed in cases such as City Inn (Jersey) Ltd v Ten Trinity Square Ltd (2008 CA) and how the approval or permission can be given as discussed in such cases as Davis v Dennis (2009 CA)
The discharge of restrictions by unity of ownership, as discussed in University of London HE Corporation v Barking and Dagenham LBC (2004 Ch)
Recent developments in the law of damage in lieu of injunctions, as applied to restrictive covenants in, for example, Amec Developments Ltd v Jurys Hotel Management (UK) Ltd (2000 Ch)
The special rules and procedures of the new Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal
Numerous recent cases on the modification of restrictions by the Tribunal, and cases on the applicable principles, such as Re Girls’ Day School Trust (CA 2001), Re Marcello (2001 LT), Re Skupinski (2003 LT), Shephard v Turner (2006 CA), Winter v Traditional & Contemporary Contracts Ltd (No 2) (2007 CA), Thames Valley Holdings Ltd v National Trust (2012 CA) and Perkins v McIver (2012 CA)
Modification by the court of covenants against subdivision of dwellings as considered in Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli (2007 CA)
