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 of the covenant and it was enforceable by them (among others).
HHJ Paul Matthews,
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
[2020] EWHC 2662 (Ch)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 84(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others (Costs : Special Considerations) ChD 27-Oct-2020
. .
Appeal from – 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’). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.655010
