Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co v Ross: CA 1888

Birmingham Corporation secured development of a large area by building agreements which granted leases on completion of the buildings to their builders. One builder, Daniell, erected a building to a height of 48 feet, and assigned his interest under his lease to the claimants. At the time of the lease there was only a low … Continue reading Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co v Ross: CA 1888

Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective. Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically attached to the land. Here there was no implied or explicit annexation of the covenants. The covenants were … Continue reading Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903

The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with the draught from the lessee’s chimneys. Section … Continue reading Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903

Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927

The court was asked whether the conveyance of a farm out of which a tithe rentcharge issued carried with it, by reason of Section 63, the rentcharge itself. Held: The farm and the tithe rentcharge were two separate hereditaments and express words would be necessary to pass the rentcharge. The intention of the 1836 Act … Continue reading Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927

Lewis v Meredith: 1913

Neville J discussed the attachment of an easement created under a leasehold interest becoming attached to the freehold interest: ‘Easement or right in the strict sense there could not be, for the common ownership precluded the acquisition of any . .

Chambers v Randell: 1923

Where there is no express annexation of the benefit of a covenant the Court will usually regard the covenant as imposed simply to protect the covenantee while he or she holds the land, or to enable the covenantee to dispose of the land, together . .

Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp: CA 1970

Mr Sharp was the local land registrar with statutory duty to maintain the local registry, issuing certificates in response to search requests. A clerk who had been seconded by another Council to assist him negligently issued an inaccurate certificate to a prospective purchaser of land, omitting any reference to a claim to reimbursement of compensation … Continue reading Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp: CA 1970

Fox v Jolly: HL 1916

The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .