Wake Smith wins modification of freehold restrictive covenant on conservatory case

Wake Smith Solicitors 31 July 2025

Wake Smith wins modification of freehold restrictive covenant on conservatory case

Conservatories are a common feature of houses in many residential areas, especially as they may not need planning permission.

However, there is always the possibility of a freehold restrictive covenant preventing the development.

Wake Smith Solicitors recently successfully won a legal battle in Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) which meant an already existing unfinished conservatory in Nottinghamshire could be modified and completed, even though a neighbour had a covenant preventing any alteration without their consent.

In the tribunal case Anthony v Hardy, Barrister Sam Healey successfully represented the Anthonys, instructed by experienced property litigator Liz Shaw from Wake Smith. The tribunal judge ruled in favour of the applicants and allowed a modification of the covenant.

Liz Shaw, Joint Managing Director and Head of Litigation at Wake Smith, looks at the details of the case.

The case details

Christopher and Lucy Anthony own and live in Welbeck House, a modern detached home in Retford. 

They wanted to install a large door or doors in the rear wall of their garage to allow them to bring large items such as garden furniture into their garden.

They applied to discharge or modify a covenant held by their neighbours Christopher and Patricia Hardy that prevented them from completing the construction of a conservatory attached to the rear of their house.

The Hardys live next door in Roche House and have the benefit of the covenant which prevents alterations and additions to Welbeck House. They objected to both the conservatory and the works to widen the doorway.

The Anthonys argued the discharge of the covenant or its modification to allow the completion of the conservatory and the creation of a large opening and door in the rear wall of the garage. They said their proposed alterations were modest in nature, objectively reasonable and would have no real impact on Mr and Mrs Hardy, or any of their neighbours.

Mr and Mrs Hardy argued if the covenant was modified the shape of Welbeck House will change and the staggered positioning would be altered that was detrimental to them. They claimed the negative impact on the conservatory on Roche House and said the view from the window in their utility room would be harmed, with the boundary between the two houses becoming overly built up.

After hearing information from an expert witness and discussions on issues including openness at the boundary, light, privacy, sense of space and views, the tribunal judge concluded the restrictive covenant could be modified.

Liz added: “The case provides a good summary of the applicable principles where an owner seeks the removal of a covenant under s84(1)(aa) LPA 1925.”

For the full case details click here https://lnkd.in/gZXjdpMS

What to do next?

Professional advice should always be sought before taking any action.

For further advice on freehold restrictive covenants contact Elizabeth Shaw, Joint Managing Director at Wake Smith Solicitors on 0114 224 2041 or email [email protected] 

Find out more about property litigation law services

Tags

Archive

August 20251July 20255June 20256May 20258April 20255March 20253February 20256January 20255December 20245November 20244October 20246September 20245August 20245July 20243June 20243May 20245April 20242March 20247February 20242January 20248December 20236November 20232October 20233September 20232August 20234July 20232June 20235May 20237March 20234February 20235January 20233December 20224November 20224October 20223September 20222June 20221May 20224April 20223March 20222February 20223January 20223December 20213November 20213October 20213September 20213August 20212July 20219June 20217May 20216April 20212March 20216February 20216January 20218December 20206November 202010October 20207September 20206August 20203July 20207June 202012May 202011April 20206March 202013February 20207January 20205December 20199November 20199October 201911September 20195August 20194July 20196May 20198April 20196March 20193February 20195January 20194December 20186November 20185October 20182September 20185August 20184July 20189June 20184May 201810April 20185March 20184February 20184January 20183December 20175November 20178October 20177September 20179August 20175July 20176June 201710May 20175April 20178March 201711February 20176January 201710December 20169November 20167October 201610September 201610August 20166July 20167June 20163May 20162April 20166March 20162February 20164January 20165December 20153November 20155October 20156September 20156August 20157July 20157June 20157May 20156April 20159March 20156February 201510January 20156December 20145November 20144October 20142September 20143May 20144March 20146February 20144January 20142December 20132November 20133September 20134July 20132June 20132May 20133April 20131March 20133February 20133January 20136December 20121November 20123October 20122August 20122July 20128June 20123April 20123March 20121January 20124December 20112November 20111October 20112September 20113August 20113July 20117June 20119May 20117April 20115March 20119February 20118January 20111December 20101October 20102September 20102August 20103July 20106June 20101May 20102April 20106March 20102February 20103January 20102December 20095November 20092October 20092September 20092August 20091July 20095June 20095May 20093April 20093March 20093February 20091January 20092November 20082October 20082September 20081August 20083July 20081January 20082
Contact us