Click the case name for better results:

Birdlip Ltd v Hunter and Another: ChD 24 Mar 2015

The claimant had bought land it wished to develop. The defendant owners of neighbouring land said that they had the benefit of restrictive covenants whch would restrict such development. Behrens HHJ [2015] EWHC 808 (Ch) Bailii Law of Property Act 1925 84(2) England and Wales Citing: See Also – Birdlip Ltd v Hunter and Another … Continue reading Birdlip Ltd v Hunter and Another: ChD 24 Mar 2015

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). That turns on the question whether there is anyone who can now claim … Continue reading Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

Mohammadzadeh v Joseph and others: ChD 15 Feb 2006

The parties disputed whether the defendants owned the benefit of a restrictive covenant. Held: The covenant did touch and concern the land, and the land with the benefit of covenant. The conditions under Federated Homes were met. The covenants were enforceable: ‘in the case of a post 1925 conveyance, once it is established that a … Continue reading Mohammadzadeh v Joseph and others: ChD 15 Feb 2006

J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council: 1989

Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. The first issue was from what facts or documents might the intention … Continue reading J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council: 1989

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others (PRE-1926 Restrictive Covenants Affecting Land): ChD 13 Oct 2020

The Court was asked whether a covenant had been attached to the land. Held: the effect of a 1922 conveyance was to annex the benefit of the covenant to land of the vendor and his tenants adjoining or near the Rec. That meant that Mr White and 77 GPS were each entitled to the benefit … Continue reading Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others (PRE-1926 Restrictive Covenants Affecting Land): ChD 13 Oct 2020