References: (1990) 26 NSWR 598
Coram: Powell J
Ratio (New South Wales) The court considered the situation where both the dominant and servient lands affected by a restricive covenant came into common ownership. There must be complete unity not merely of ownership, but also of possession. The law has developed by analogy with the law relating to easements, and the benefit of a restrictive covenant is destroyed ‘upon the ownership and possession of both dominant and servient tenements coming into the same hands’. The basis for the qualification is that a restrictive covenant is not to be extinguished if there continues to exist a person (whether or not the successor in title to the estate held by the original covenantor or the original covenantee) entitled to the benefit or subject to the burden of the restrictive covenant.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation -v- London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and others ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 2710 (Ch), Times 03-Jan-05)
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . . - Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd -v- Joint London Holdings Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [20051 EWCA Civ 1171, Times 11-Oct-05)
The head lease contained a covenant against use of the premises as ‘victuallers’. The tenant sublet the premises for use as a sandwich shop. The tenant argued that the word ‘victuallers’ was to be construed only to prevent the use as ‘licensed . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 14-May-16
Ref: 220708
