Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective.
Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically attached to the land. Here there was no implied or explicit annexation of the covenants. The covenants were intended to be exercisable by the covenantee for only as long as it retained land.
Since the covenants allowed for consents, it could not be inferred that on the disappearance of the covenantee, the covenants became absolute.

Peter Smith J
[2010] EWHC 111 (Ch)
Conveyancing Act 1881 58, Law of Property 1925 78
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 . .
CitedRenals v Cowlishaw 1879
The word ‘assigns’ was used to denote the successors in title to the land both of the original restrictive covenantor and of the original covenantee.
Held: this was insufficient to enable a subsequent owner of the Mill Hill estate who did not . .
CitedJ Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council 1989
Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. . .
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 . .
CitedElliston v Reacher ChD 1908
The court was asked whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: It had. The court set out the factors which must be shown to establish a building scheme on an estate; Both plaintiff and defendant’s titles must derive from the same . .
CitedSugarman v Porter and others ChD 8-Mar-2006
The claimant said that his land was free of restrictive covenants in favour of the land owned by the defendants, and requested a declaration to that effect. . .
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 . .
CitedMargerison v Bates and Another ChD 30-May-2008
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant after the disappearance of the covenantee. The covenant required no additional building without the consent of the covenantee, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The term . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.396453