Strips of land lay between the two hotels operated by the parties. Restrictive covenants had been entered into by the respondent’s predecessors in title. The claimant brought proceedings to enforce the restrictions on the use of the land. An earlier case had been compromised on condition that the covenants be entered on the registers. This had not happened, and the land had been sold on twice to the present owners.
Held: Questions of annexation only arose on a transfer of the property benefited. The burden of a covenant does not run with freehold land at common law. A negative covenant may be enforced against a successor in title in equity, but only for the benefit of land of the covenantee or his successor in title. An original covenantee, therefore, cannot enforce such a covenant against a successor in title of the covenantor unless he retains the ownership of land which is capable of enjoying the benefit of the covenant. Jamaica adopted a Torrens style for land registration. The registration of the covenants after the land had been transferred was ineffective, since they ceased to bind the land on transfer unless registered.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Millett, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Sir Christopher Staughton
 UKPC 24, (Appeal No 31 of 2000)
PC, PC, PC, Bailii
Restrictive Covenants (Discharge and Modification) Act 1960 (Jamaica)
England and Wales
Cited – London County Council v Allen 1914
A landowner applied to the plaintiffs for their sanction to a new street scheme. It was given but subject to his covenant to keep certain land unbuilt upon. He gave the covenant. The plaintiffs themselves had no land in the area capable of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land, Land, Commonwealth
Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.171198