A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section to bind successors in title also, could not be implied where the commercial context suggested that such an implication would be inconsistent with the purport of the instrument. The words which might be implied under the section, would not be implied against the commercial sense of the transaction, nor inconsistently with the purport of the covenant. The effect of section 79(1) is to convert a promise in a covenant from one which is made by the covenantor into one in which, all other things being equal, equitable remedies are available against an extended class of persons.
Robert Walker LJ said: ‘My tentative view, therefore, coinciding, I think, with the judge’s, is that section 79, where it applies, and subject always to any contrary intention, extends the number of persons whose acts or omissions are within the reach of the covenant in the sense of making equitable remedies available, provided that the other conditions for equity’s intervention are satisfied. Where a restrictive covenant is expressed in the active voice, and section 79 applies, its normal effect is not to turn ‘A covenants with X that A will not build’ into ‘A and B covenant with X that A will not build’. Rather it is that ‘A (on behalf of himself and B) covenants with X that A (or, as the circumstances may require, B) will not build’. ‘
Judges:
Schiemann, Wallker LJJ, Sir Donald Waterhouse
Citations:
Times 15-Aug-2000, Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 226, [2001] Ch 459
Links:
Statutes:
Law of Property Act 1925 79(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club and Others ChD 22-Jun-2000
Land was sold by the authority for a public house, and the authority covenanted not to permit sales of alcohol within a half mile. They later sold land for a football stadium within that area and from where alcohol would be sold. The covenant was . .
Cited – Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama ChD 9-Dec-1999
The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining . .
Cited – Green v Ashco Horticulturist Ltd 1966
F granted T a lease reserving the right to deal with all rights in the property as F wanted. T used the back court and gate for business deliveries but then F granted the freehold to the plaintiff, who in turn denied all right to use the back court . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club and Others ChD 22-Jun-2000
Land was sold by the authority for a public house, and the authority covenanted not to permit sales of alcohol within a half mile. They later sold land for a football stadium within that area and from where alcohol would be sold. The covenant was . .
Cited – CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd and Another v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd ChD 13-Jun-2012
The claimants asserted a right of light either by prescription or under lost modern grant. The defendants argued that alterations in the windows arrangements meant that any prescription period was restarted.
Held: ‘the Defendant is not correct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.83827