Land in Liverpool was sold in building plots. The vendors retained the roads and sewers and a promenade and sea wall. A separate deed of covenant of 1851 between the vendors and the owners of the plots which had by then been sold, recited that the retained lands were intended to be left upon trust to be used and enjoyed by the owners of the plots and their successors in title. The owners of the plots by the deed covenanted that they and their successors in title would pay a due proportion of the expenses of maintenance of the roads, sewers promenade and sea wall. That proportion was to be determined in an Annual General Meeting of the owners of the plots. The successors in title of an original covenantor were prepared to pay a contribution in respect of one plot but challenged the validity of a resolution at an Annual General Meeting requiring them to pay several contributions because the building on their plot had been subdivided into flats.
Held: Upjohn J said that the successors in title to the covenantors could not be sued on the covenants, but ‘it is conceded that it is ancient law that a man cannot take benefit under a deed without subscribing to the obligations thereunder.’
and
‘If the defendants did not desire to take the benefit of this deed, for the reasons I have given, they could not be under any liability to pay the obligations thereunder. But, of course, they do desire to take the benefit of this deed. They have no right to use the sewers which are vested in the plaintiffs, and I cannot see that they have any right, apart from the deed, to use the roads of the park which lead to their particular house. The defendants cannot rely on any way of necessity or on any right by prescription, for the simple reason that when the house was originally sold in 1931 to their predecessor in title he took the house on the terms of the deed of 1851 which contractually bound him to contribute a proper proportion of the expenses of maintaining the roads and sewers, and so forth, as a condition of being entitled to make use of those roads and sewers. Therefore, it seems to me that the defendants here cannot, if they desire to use this house, as they do, take advantage of the trusts concerning the user of the roads contained in the deed and the other benefits created by it without undertaking the obligations thereunder. Upon that principle it seems to me that they are bound by this deed, if they desire to take its benefits.’
Upjohn J
[1957] 1 All ER 371, [1957] Ch 169
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bhullar and Another v McArdle CA 10-Apr-2001
The defendant had registered a caution against the claimant’s land at the Land Registry. The claimant sought its removal and now appealed an order for rectification of the register against him. The parties had reached oral agreements as to the . .
Cited – IDC Group Ltd and others v Clark and others CA 25-Jun-1991
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC reviewed the cases about constructive trust claims summarising the result as follows: ‘That decision [Lyus] was approved by the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . The Court of Appeal put what I hope is . .
Cited – Allied London Industrial Properties Limited v Castleguard Properties Limited CA 24-Jul-1997
The parties disputed the effect of a conveyance of land from 1985 and an associated deed of variation. The variation added an easement which was argued by the purchaser to have attached to the land, and was said by the vendor to have been personal . .
Cited – Beckenham Mc Ltd v Centralex Ltd and others ChD 10-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlef Von Appen Gmbh v Wiener Allianz Versichrungs Ag and Voest Alpine Intertrading Gmbh CA 16-Apr-1997
. .
Cited – Bluestorm Ltd v Portvale Holdings Ltd CA 13-Feb-2004
The appellant was a lessee of some premises within a development. They purchased the freehold through a subsidiary but then failed to make repairs. When the other tenants withheld the service charges, the company was liquidated. Another tenant . .
Cited – Rhone and Another v Stephens HL 17-Mar-1994
A house was divided, the house being retained along with the roof over the cottage, and giving a covenant to repair the roof on behalf of the owner of the house. The cottage owner sought to enforce the covenant against a later owner of the house. . .
Cited – Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
Cited – Rhone and Another v Stephens HL 17-Mar-1994
A house was divided, the house being retained along with the roof over the cottage, and giving a covenant to repair the roof on behalf of the owner of the house. The cottage owner sought to enforce the covenant against a later owner of the house. . .
Cited – Davies and Others v Jones and Another CA 9-Nov-2009
The parties contracted for the sale of land for development. The contract allowed for the costs of environmental remediation, but disputed the true figure set by the eventual builder and retained. The court now heard argument about whether the sum . .
Cited – Thompson v Bee and Another CA 20-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the extent and nature of the use allowed for an unregistered but express right of way. The track had been obtained by use for agriculture. The dominant owner appealed against a finding that it was limited to agricultural use, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Land
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.189960
Comments are closed.