White v Bijou Mansions: ChD 1937

The court heard an argument that section 56 of the 1925 Act had not changed the law to allow a third party to sue under a covenant to which he had not been party.
Held: Simonds J rejected an argument that section 56 enabled anyone to take advantage of a covenant if he could shew that if the covenant were enforced it would redound to his advantage: ‘Just as under section 5 of the Act of 1845 only that person could call it in aid who, although not a party, was yet a grantee or covenantee, so under section 56 of this Act only that person can call it in aid who although not named as a party to the conveyance or other instrument is yet a person to whom that conveyance or other instrument purports to grant something or with which some agreement or covenant is purported to be made.’


Simonds J


[1937] Ch 610


Law of Propety Act 1925 56


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromWhite v Bijou Mansions CA 1938
The court heard an rejected an argument that s56 worked to allow a third party to sue under a covenant to which he had not been party: ‘before he can enforce it he must be a person who falls within the scope and benefit of the covenant according to . .
CitedBeswick v Beswick HL 29-Jun-1967
The deceased had assigned his coal merchant business to the respondent against a promise to pay andpound;5.00 a week to his widow whilst she lived. The respondent appealed an order requiring him to make the payments, saying that as a consolidating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.251040