Freehold Covenants Flashcards
Rogers v Hosegood
transmission of benefit covenants
- must touch and concern
Renals v Cowlinshaw
absences of reference to land = fatal
express annexation (1) intention that benefit becomes part of the land
Rogers v Hosegood
“heirs & assigns to all land adjourning
Re Ballards Conveyance
D land is so large that it is impossible to prove all land benefited (so not good enough)
Marquess of Zeltand
issue of D’s land being so large avoided because covenant expressed to be for “each and every party of the estate”
Roake v Clarke
expressly said it would not run with the land
- s.78 said it doesn’t matter, if it satisfies land condition then it does
Reid v Bickerstaff
held: not required that all owners subject to the same obligations
Covenants might benefit all bits of land but one might be subject to additional covenant that others are not but that covenant benefits all estate land
- e.g. gardens that are bigger, you have a negative burden not to build on it rather than just to use it for enjoyment
- as long as they all benefit then it is fine
Jaggard v Sawyer
use land as garden
Newton Abbott
use land as ironmongers
Swift Investments
Test for whether burden relates to land
- could it be imposed on any owner
- does it affect quality, mode, and value of the land?
- expressly personal? irrespective of substance
Newton Abbott (benefit to DT)
Ironmongers not allowed opposite
- covenant is okay because it benefits her land (business is more valuable without competition, so land will sell for more)
Rhone v Stephans
whether it is negative or positive is judged by substance
- positive compels ST to spend
- negative stops S from doing something
Thamsemead v Alloy
applied Rhone at HL
Tulk v Moxhay
in equity, burden of negative covenants can transfer
Hasel v Brazell
mutual benefit and burden
- entitled to share facilities (benefit) so also must inherit the burden (to pay for its maintenance)
