DEFINITION: A covenant is a personal contractual promise given by the covenantor to the covenantee.
Freehold covenants are made between the freehold owners of two separate pieces of land and are
often created on a sale of part.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: The covenantor must passively not
do something in order to keep their promise which usually
does not involve expenditure e.g. a promise not to build on
the land.
COMMON LAW
Burden DOESN'T pass
Benefit DOES pass
REQUIREMENTS: 1) ‘Touch and Concern’ Case: - Smith and Snipes Hall Farm v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] -
‘The covenant must either affect the land as regards its mode of occupation or it …affects the value of the land.’ 2)
Original covenantor held a legal estate in land 3) Successor in covenantee title holds a legal estate in land 4)Benefit
‘annexed’ Annexation Express? Implied? S.78 LPA 1925 *Check if it meets the deed requirements for the LP(MP)A 1989
**Benefit of a restrictive covenant is NOT registerable
EQUITY
Benefit DOES pass
REQUIREMENTS: 1) ‘Touch and concern’ 2) Successor must
own an estate in law or in equity 3) Intended to run
Intended to run: i. Assignment ii. Annexation iii. Development Scheme
Annexation: 1. Express - Equity would want to see that the original parties attached the
benefit of the covenant to the land. 2. Implied (rare) 3. Statute - Federated Homes v Mill
Lodge Properties – where a restrictive covenant touched or concerned covenantee’s land,
s.78, LPA 1925 automatically annexed the benefit
Burden DOES pass
REQUIREMENTS: 1) Negative in nature 2) Covenant must ‘accommodate’ the dominant land - Sufficiently proximate -
Rogers v Hosegood [1900]; Touch and Concern - Case: - P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Ltd 1989 3)
Intended the burden to pass - Express or Implied (s.79 LPA 1925) 4) Transferee of the servient land must have notice -
Register notice on charges register s.32 LRA 2002
** Restrictive covenants are only equitable interest in land and are not overriding
POSITIVE COVENANTS: The covenantor must actively do
something in order to keep their promise which usually
involves expenditure e.g. a promise to maintain a fence.
COMMON LAW
Benefit DOES pass
S.56 (1) LPA 1925 permits “a person [to] take the benefit of a covenant even though he is not
named as a party to the conveyance” Beswick v Beswick - for a non-party to take the benefit
he had to be identifiable from the original covenant.
Requirements are the same as Restrictive Covenants expect Positive Covenants ARE registerable
Burden DOESN'T pass
So a covenant can only run when the original covenantor retains the title to the land. In Austerberry v
Oldham Corporation the burden to maintain and repair a road did not run and so the successor in title was
not bound.
EXCEPTION
The doctrine of MUTUAL BENEFIT is the EXCEPTIONto the general rule that the burden of a covenant cannot run. ‘He
who takes the benefit of the freehold grant must also take the burden’. Key case: Halsall v Brizell [1957]
Annotations:
The rule in Halsall v. Brizell [1967] states that he who takes the benefit of a deed must also shoulder the burden. However, Lord Templeman limited the use of the doctrine in Rhone v. Stephens [1994], he made it clear that the benefit and the burden must be connected, they cannot be independent obligations.
REQUIREMENTS: 1) Benefit and burden must be conferred in the same transaction 2) Enjoyment of benefit and imposition of
burden must relate 3) The burdened party must have had the opportunity to disclaim the enjoyment of the benefit ( cannot
be forced). Davies v Jones [2009]
INDEMNITY COVENANTS are another way a burden can pass, in circumstance where the seller includes a clause in the
transfer of the land and the buyer agrees to carry the burden of the covenant through the conveyance; thus being
liable for any future potential breaches.
EQUITY
Burden DOESN'T pass
Benefit DOESN'T pass
FORMALITIES
Must be contained in a deed to be enforceable s.1
LP(MP) A 1989
EQUITABLE interests must be created in writing s.53(1)(a) LPA
1925
REMEDIES
Injunction (mandatory or
prohibitory) OR Damages in
lieu of an injunction
Generally if it is between the original parties the doctrine
of privity of contract will allow the awarding of DAMAGES
for breach of contract. BUT extended under C(ROTP)A 1999
EXTINGUISH AND
VARIATION
1.Express release or variation 2. Implied
release (abandonment) or variation
3.Unification 4.Obsolescence