LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – entitlement to benefit – preliminary issue – whether covenant impliedly annexed to land – surrounding circumstances – held no entitlement – objectors not admitted.
The landowners sought the discharge of a restrictive covenant requiring land to be used as a Public Park or Recreation Ground or meadow. Four hundred locals objected. The court set the applicants into several categories according to the evidence they presented of title to object.
Held: the terms of the covenant, both in themselves and when constructed in the light of the indenture as a whole, are clear. The covenant was made with the Company without reference to its retained land. In what appeared to be a carefully drafted deed, this provision contrasted with the other provisions. A positive inference was to be drawn that the intention was that the covenant should be a purely personal one, reserving the Handley Page the power of release.
Citations:
[2006] EWLands LP – 75 – 2004
Links:
Statutes:
Law of Property Act 1925 84(3A)
Citing:
Cited – Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board CA 1949
Benefit of Covenant Ran with Land
In 1938, landowners and the Catchment Board agreed that the Board would make good and maintain the banks of a stream, with the landowners contributing to the cost. The agreement was not said to be for the benefit of the landowner’s successors in . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245447