Land

Father's Field Developments Ltd v Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd (RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - COSTS)

[2021] UKUT LC 252Upper Tribunal (Lands)2021

“RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - COSTS - unsuccessful objector ordered to pay the applicant’s costs because of the objector’s unreasonable behaviour in pursuing a manifestly hopeless legal argument.”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Father's Field Developments Ltd v Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd (RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - COSTS). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Land cases

Jamieson v London & Quadrant Housing Trust (LANDLORD AND TENANT - SERVICE CHARGES - orders under s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and para. 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - FTT's reasoning)

[2026] UKUT LC 103

214 Bermondsey Street Ltd v Corfe (LANDLORD AND TENANT - SERVICE CHARGES - evidence)

[2026] UKUT LC 96

Okoye v Zachariah & Anor (HOUSING - RENT REPAYMENT ORDER - selective licensing - flat belonging to appellant's wife let by agent in appellant's name without obtaining licence)

[2026] UKUT LC 155

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council (PARK HOMES - SITE LICENSING - licence condition requiring licensing authority's consent to any material change in site layout - conditions regulating access and parking - whether conditions unduly burdensome - FTT permitting local authority to amend licence condition during appeal - whether a procedural irregularity - ss. 5, 7, 9, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960)

[2026] UKUT LC 52

Compare the Market Ltd v Giles (VO) (RATING - valuation - alteration of 2017 rating list - hereditament comprising two separate office buildings)

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.