Publication
Global rules on foreign direct investment (FDI)
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Global | Publication | December 2018
It is not unusual for an investigation of title to land intended for development to disclose restrictive covenants of one type or another. What should a developer do if the restriction appears to stop the proposed development in its tracks?
In Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd and another [2018] EWCA Civ 2679 the Court of Appeal confirmed in no uncertain terms that the last thing that the developer should do is to carry on regardless.
The developer in this case was aware of restrictive covenants over its land in favour of adjoining owners which prevented residential development. However, having obtained planning permission for social housing, it turned a blind eye and proceeded to build nine 2-storey houses and four bungalows on the site. Having done so the developer then applied to the Upper Tribunal for the discharge of the covenants under section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, which grants power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land on certain limited grounds. The ground relied upon by the developer was that the covenant impeded the reasonable use of the land for social housing, which was contrary to the public interest. The adjoining owners objected.
The Court of Appeal took exception to the “deliberately unlawful and opportunistic” conduct of the developer and the fact that it presented the Upper Tribunal with a “fait accompli” in an attempt to force its hand. What is more, the developer had not tried to identify those with the benefit of the restrictive covenants in order to negotiate with them but rode roughshod over their property rights, nor had it explored alternative ways of achieving the development which would not have resulted in breach.
In short, the developer “… acted with its eyes open and…as a result it is appropriate and in conformity with the public interest that it should bear the risk that it may have wasted its own resources in building the 13 housing units on the ... land”.
Given these unequivocal words it will come as no surprise that the developer’s application to discharge the restrictive covenants was refused. It remains to be seen whether an injunction will be granted for the removal of the buildings.
We think the lesson is clear ...
Publication
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Publication
On February 2, 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives had signed the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation, referred to as the AI Act. Approval by the EU Parliament followed on 13 March 2024, and the AI Act is likely to appear in the EU’s Official Journal around May 2024. The AI Act aims to establish a stringent legal framework governing the development, marketing, and utilisation of artificial intelligence within the region, thereby marking a significant advancement in the regulation of this burgeoning domain.
Publication
The private credit market and direct lending have grown and diversified immensely in the past decade, offering alternative sources and terms of debt compared to those historically provided by the syndicated leveraged loan and public issuance markets. Consequently, they are fast becoming pivotal components in the capital ecosystem, so much so that the Bank of England consider that the private credit market is currently responsible for approximately $1.8 trillion of debt issuance, which is four times its size in 2015. This growth has been particularly pronounced in Europe and the US but there has also been significant activity in Asia.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023