Mohammadzadeh v Joseph and others: ChD 15 Feb 2006

The parties disputed whether the defendants owned the benefit of a restrictive covenant.
Held: The covenant did touch and concern the land, and the land with the benefit of covenant. The conditions under Federated Homes were met. The covenants were enforceable: ‘in the case of a post 1925 conveyance, once it is established that a restrictive covenant relates to, that is to say, ‘touches and concerns’, the vendor’s retained land, section 78(1) obviates the need to show separately and additionally by reference to the express terms of, or a necessary implication in, the conveyance an intention that the covenant shall benefit the land so as to be enforceable by successors in title of the covenantee rather than be enforceable only as a matter of contract by the covenantee and those to whom the covenantee expressly assigns the benefit of the covenant. ‘

Etherton J
[2006] EWHC 1040 (Ch)
Law of Property Act 1925 84(2)
England and Wales
CitedFederated 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 . .
CitedCrest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister CA 1-Apr-2004
Land had been purchased which was subject to a restrictive covenant. The papers did not disclose the precise extent of the dominant land, the land which benefitted from the restriction.
Held: The land having the benefit of a covenant had to be . .
CitedMarquess of Zetland v Driver CA 1939
The vendor was tenant for life of settled land at Redcar. By a 1926 conveyance part was conveyed to a purchaser who covenanted ‘to the intent and so as to bind as far as practicable the said property hereby conveyed into whosesoever hands the same . .
CitedCrest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister ChD 18-Nov-2002
A vendor/purchaser covenant was not to use the premises, ‘for any purpose other than those of or in connection with a private dwellinghouse.’ The parties requested the court to construe its meaning. The meaning had been considered before and settled . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.241684