Purchaser with notice bound in Equity
A, being seised of the centre garden and some houses in Leicester Square, conveyed the garden to B in fee, and B covenanted for himself and his assigns to keep the garden unbuilt upon.
Held: A purchaser from B, with notice of the covenant, was bound by it in equity, whether he was bound at law or not, and an injunction was granted to restrain him infringing the covenant. The equitable doctrine is that restrictive covenants follow the land to the new owner on notice. The subsequent owner must be found to have notice before he will be bound by the covenants.
The burden of a positive covenant will not run with the land. In order to bind a successor in title: 1) the covenant must be negative in substance 2) It must benefit the land of the covenantee, 3) The burden must be intended to run with the land, and 4) the successor must have notice of the covenant.
Lord Cottenham LC said: ‘It is said that the covenant being one which does not run with the land, this court cannot enforce it; but the question is, not whether the covenant runs with the land, but whether a party shall be permitted to use the land in a manner inconsistent with the contract entered into by his vendor, and with notice of which he purchased.’ and ‘if an equity is attached to the property by the owner, no one purchasing with notice of that equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased.’
Lord Cottenham LC, Knight Bruce LJ
(1848) 2 Ph 774, [1848] 1 H and TW 105, [1848] 18 LJ Ch 83, [1848] 13 LTOS 21, [1848] 13 Jur 89, [1848] 41 ER 1143 LC, (1848) 11 Beavan 571, [1848] EWHC Ch J34, [1848] EngR 1059, (1848) 1 H and Tw 105, (1848) 47 ER 1345, [1848] EngR 1065, (1848) 41 ER 1143, [1848] EngR 1005, (1848) 11 Beav 571, (1848) 50 ER 937
Bailii, Commonlii, Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Keppell v Bailey ChD 29-Jan-1834
The court was asked whether the owner of land can burthen it in the hands of future owners by the creation of novel rights.
Held: Lord Brougham said: ‘It must not be supposed that incidents of a novel kind can be devised and attached to . .
Cited – Whatman v Gibson 5-Apr-1838
A, the owner of a piece of land, divided it into lots for building a row of houses, and a deed was made between him of the one part and X and Y, (who had purchased some of the lots from him) and the several persons who should at any time execute the . .
Cited – The Duke of Bedford v The Trustees of The British Museum 6-Jul-1822
Where land is conveyed in fee, by deed of feoffment, subject to a perpetual ground rent, and the feoffee covenants for himself, his heirs and assigns, with the feoffor, the owner of adjoining lands, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, . .
Cited – Mann v Stephens 23-Jul-1846
A. being seised in fee of a house and a piece of open land near to it, sold and conveyed the house to E, and covenanted, for himself, his heirs and assigns, with B., his heirs and assigns, that no building whatever should at any time thereafter be . .
Cited by:
Criticised – London County Council v Allen 1914
A landowner applied to the plaintiffs for their sanction to a new street scheme. It was given but subject to his covenant to keep certain land unbuilt upon. He gave the covenant. The plaintiffs themselves had no land in the area capable of . .
Considered – Patching v Dubbins 1853
The purchase-deed of a house in a terrace contained a covenant on the part of the vendor, unexplained by any recital, that no building should be erected on any part of the land of the vendor lying on the east side of the said terrace and opposite to . .
Considered – Child v Douglas 5-May-1854
. .
Cited – Crest 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 . .
Applied – Hemingway Securities Ltd v Dunraven Ltd and another ChD 16-Aug-1994
The lease contained a covenant against sub-letting. The tenant created a sub-lease in breach of that covenant and without the consent of the landlord.
Held: The head landlord was entitled to an injunction requiring the sub-tenant to surrender . .
Cited – Abbey Homesteads (Developments) Limited v Northamptonshire County Council CA 1986
Clause 1 of an agreement between a company and the District Council required that the land should be sold subject to the conditions restricting and regulating the development. A clause provided ‘An area of 1.3 hectares adjacent to the playing field . .
Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
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 – Rhone and Another v Stephens HL 17-Mar-1994
A house was divided, the house being retained along with the roof over the cottage, and giving a covenant to repair the roof on behalf of the owner of the house. The cottage owner sought to enforce the covenant against a later owner of the house. . .
Cited – London and South Western Railway Co v Gomm CA 1882
A grant was given to repurchase property, but was void at common law for the uncertainty of the triggering event.
Held: The ‘right’ to ‘take away’ the claimants’ estate or interest in the farm was immediately vested in the grantee of the right . .
Cited – Noakes and Co Ltd v Rice HL 17-Dec-2001
A charge on a public house provided that even after repayment of the principal, the owner continued to be obliged to purchase his beer from the brewery, and that any non-payment would be charged on the property.
Held: The clauses operated as a . .
Cited – Coles v Sims 16-Jan-1854
. .
Cited – Taylor v Gilbertson 3-Jul-1854
. .
Cited – Johnstone v Hall 11-Mar-1856
. .
Cited – Hodson v Coppard 6-Nov-1860
. .
Cited – Heywood v Heywood 19-Nov-1860
. .
Cited – Earl of Zetland v Hislop HL 12-Jun-1882
. .
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.
Land, Equity
Leading Case
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.181987