The court considered the enuring of the benefit of a restrictive covenant. Romer LJ said: ‘. . where one finds not ‘the land coloured yellow’ or ‘the estate’ or ‘the field named so and so’ or anything of that kind, but ‘the lands retained by the vendor,’ it appears to me that there is a sufficient indication that the benefit of the covenant enures to every one of the lands retained by the vendor, and if a plaintiff in a subsequent action to enforce a covenant can say: ‘I am the owner of a piece of land that belonged to the vendor at the time of the conveyance,’ he is entitled to enforce the covenant.’
Greene LJ said: ‘There are two familiar methods of indicating in a covenant of this kind the land in respect of which the benefit is to enure. One is to describe the character in which the covenantee receives the covenant. This is the form which is adopted here, a covenant with so and so, owners or owner for the time being of whatever the land may be. Another method is to state by means of an appropriate declaration that the covenant is taken ‘for the benefit of’ whatever the lands may be.’
Romer LJ , Greene LJ
[1936] Ch 451
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd CA 29-Nov-1979
Covenents Attach to entire land not just parts
Conveyances contained restrictive covenants but they were not expressly attached to the land. The issue was whether they were merely personal.
Held: Section 78 made the covenant by the purchaser binding on his successors also. The section . .
Cited – 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.248261