The court considered whether a covenant which was annexed to retained land was annexed to the entire plot only, and not to any part of it.
Bennett J said: ‘In my judgment, in order that an express assignee of a covenant restricting the user of land may be able to enforce that covenant against the owner of the land burdened with the covenant, he must be able to satisfy the Court of two things. The first is that it was a covenant entered into for the benefit of protection of land owned by the covenantee at the date of the covenant. Otherwise it is a covenant in gross, and unenforceable except as between the parties to the covenant: see Formby v Barker. Secondly the assignee must be able to satisfy the Court that the deed containing the covenant defines or contains something to define the property for the benefit of which the covenant was entered into: see James L.J. in Renals v Cowlishaw. ‘
 Ch 611
England and Wales
Cited – Federated 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 . .
Cited – Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.248260