Land Ws7 Freehold Covenants

Front 1

A Benefit passes to a successor covenantee if there has been an express assignment because it is a “chose in action”

Back 1

LPA25, s136

Front 2

Covenant with land relating to the covenantee will be made with C, successors in title and derived estates

Back 2

LPA25, s78(1)

Front 3

For the benefit of a covenant to pass automatically, the covenant must touch and concern the land of the covenantee. It must:
- affect the mode of occupation
- by itself affect the value of the land
(covenantee must own land identifiable and able to benefit thus)
- original covenantee and current must have a legal estate in the land
- land must be ascertainable from “deed”
- one claimant was a tenant but was OK as it was a legal estate

Back 3

Smith and Snipes v River Douglas (1949)

Front 4

Touches and concerns test:
– Covenant benefits LL or T only while they hold the estate
– Covenant affects the nature, quality, mode of user or value of the land
– Not expressed in reference to specific persons
– OK to be related to paying money only if related to doing something to the land

Back 4

P&A Swift Investments v Combined English (1989)

Front 5

The general rule is that at common law the burden of a covenant does not run with the land
- Successors in title can't be bound because they are not a party

Back 5

Austerberry v Oldham Corpn (1885)

Front 6

Mutual benefit and burden rule: if you desire to take the benefits of a deed you must take the burden of covenants of the deed as well

Back 6

Halsall v Brizell (1957)

Front 7

Limitation on Halsall: burden must relate to benefit, ie benefit from access road and have to pay for maintenance in order for burden to pass to successor to covenator

Back 7

Rhone v Stephens (1994)

Front 8

Equitable covenants being enforceable by successors in title: LPA s78 interpreted as saying “yes” if it touches and concerns the land

Back 8

Federated Homes v Mill Lodge (1980)

Front 9

The burden of an equitable covenant runs to a successor if the successor has notice of it.

Back 9

Tulk v Moxhay (1848)