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 with an express assignment of the benefit of the covenant, more advantageously. Sargant J said that the principle: ‘is that the equitable doctrine enabling restrictive covenants to be enforced against assigns with notice ought not to be extended in derogation of the ordinary rights at common law of purchasers, and that it ought to be applied only where it is sought to enforce the covenant in connection with the enjoyment of land that the covenant was intended to protect.’
Sargant J
[1923] 1 Ch 149
Conveyancing Act 1881
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedUniversity of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.220705