According to the Crynes, the Chronicle reports. It seems it's an old restrictive covenant which is now unenforceable and was to the benefit of the Senior family that owned the brewery. They also say the consortium was aware of it.
Restrictive covenants don’t become unenforceable by way of age. Something like that should’ve been sorted in the due diligence process though- if the new owners were really worried they could take out insurance to cover the potential loss should anyone ever enforce the covenant. I would be really surprised if that was the only issue here, as that sort of thing is pretty routinely dealt with in the transfer process. I suppose the consortium could argue the matter was not properly disclosed, but that depends on the level of disclosure agreed between the parties. Information readily available on the Land Registry is usually deemed to be disclosed to the buying party.
Is it a covenant that prevents building anything on the land except sporting facilities for the community? Sure I heard summat like that back in the Sean Lewis days. So it can't be flogged off for housing etc..
I remember from reading from away back that the Covenant made it that the land could only be used for sporting activities only whilst ever their was a surviving member of the family (Senior family I presume) That’s why BFC were allowed to build the academy on the old Coop Sports ground. Also, there was only one family member left and he/she was elderly?????
So the new owners are using a 100 year old covenant that they should have known about during due diligance to welch on an agreed repayment plan?
Why all this didn’t come up when the takeover happened I guess is a debate point. would the covenant owner be using this to leverage a payment?
It's true that restrictive covenants don't become unenforceable by way of age, but if the covenant has become obsolete (say due to a change in the character of the land or the surrounding area in the time since it was made) then the burdened party can apply to the Upper Tribunal to have the covenant modified or discharged. An application for discharge will also succeed if it can be proved that the covenant impedes some reasonable use of the land and does not protect any practical benefit (or is contrary to public interest) and if money would be adequate compensation for the benefiting party. If the covenant is 100 years old I'd be surprised if it wasn't capable of modification/discharge. The interesting question would be who has the benefit of the covenant, and what approach are they taking that seems to be causing so much trouble?
If anyone has the John Dennis book I'm sure he discusses the covenant in there and how the club reached some kind of agreement with the senior family which could explain why it is unenforceable
Or to the current owners of the ground. If this option to sell to the 3rd party is unenforceable then why? Too many scenarios going round my head to put here.
Plus, a covenant doesn't normally impact on say planning decision. Someone normally has to make an objection that they are impacted by the breach.. Quite a few commercial properties that were built on former Church land many moons ago, have some odd covenants like not selling beasts outside the premises or sale of intoxicating liqueurs. But again, it wouldn't stop a developer say opening a micropub, someone would have to raise a complaint that they are impacted by the breach etc..