• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Advise Simon as to the enforceability of the covenants.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Matthew was the owner of a large parcel of registered land and in 2000 he decided to divide it into 2 plots, Plot A and Plot B. He retained Plot A for himself and sold Plot B to John, who covenanted to (i) use Plot B for residential purposes, and (ii) ensure that the dividing wall remains in good condition. In 2004, Matthew sold Plot A to Simon. The conveyance to Simon expressly assigned the benefit of all covenants to him. Last year, John sold Plot B to Paul and Paul covenanted to indemnify John for any breaches of covenants. Since then, Paul has neglected the dividing wall claiming that he was not responsible for its upkeep. Simon has just found out that Paul is about to start a business selling car parts in Plot B. Advise Simon as to the enforceability of the covenants. The principal concern of this question is with covenants made between freeholders and the circumstances in which successors in title to the original parties can enforce these covenants set out. Firstly we know this is a freehold covenant because we are told in 2000 Matthew divides his registered land into 2 and sells Plot B to John thus making the covenants put forward, freehold covenants. ...read more.

Middle

From the scenario we can see that this condition is satisfied and the covenants do touch and concern the land. Secondly the covenantee must, at the time of the covenant, have a legal estate in land to be benefited. Thirdly the covenant must have been made for the benefit of land owned by the original covenantee. Matthew at the time covenant was made, owned legal estate in land thus satisfying this condition and lastly the claimant must have derived his/her title from or under the original covenantee. Simon bought Plot A from Matthew and derived his title. All 4 conditions have been satisfied and this shows that Simon has benefit at law. In order to see if Simon can take action we need to find out whether burden has run. Paul can only be sued if burden runs to him at law. The basic rule at common law is that the burden of a covenant (positive or negative in nature) cannot run with the land. Relevant law in this matter is stated in the case of Austerberry v Oldham Corp 1885. Only a person who is an actual party to the covenant can be sued at common law. ...read more.

Conclusion

A scheme such as this will arise where an area of land is subdivided into plots by the developer, which is then later sold to different purchasers. This applies to our scenario because Matthew divided the land into 2 parts, Plot A and Plot B and was relatively sold to different purchasers. Within such schemes equity takes the view that all owners of land within the scheme can enforce the covenants. The requirements for the existence of this scheme were set out in Elliston v Reacher 1908 and stated that (i) parties must derive title under common vendor, (ii) before the sale the vendor must have laid out the land in plots, (iii) covenants intended for the benefit of all plots sold. All of these requirements are met within our scenario. In equity, a building scheme ensures that the benefit of the covenant imposed on other plots will automatically run to all successors of the original purchasers, without the need for express annexation or for assignment. This shows that Simon has the benefit in equity and can sue Paul for the breaches of the covenants thus enforcing them. Remedies will include prohibitory injunction and damages for the breach of the covenants. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Land Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Land Law essays

  1. Land Law Problem Question; Adverse Possession, Easements, Covenants and Overriding Interests.

    occupation at the time of the disposition.12 If we apply the rule in Chhokar v Chhokar13, where even though the husband completed the transfer of the sale when his wife was in hospital, it was held that she was still in actual occupation, despite her temporary absence.

  2. Concept of proprietary estoppel - it could be said that the courts are restrictive ...

    Thompson MP says it is easy to see why a test based on a broad principle of unconscionability should be viewed should be viewed with some suspicion; it may be seen as providing scope for judges to apply idiosyncratic notions of fairness to different factual scenarios, the result being uncertainty.

  1. Land Law

    This has the effect of distorting the structure of the act and detracts from the basic principles of registration. Consequently, the purchasers are bound by a range of equitable interests. Another failing in the system is that the only protection for the purchaser is the 'enquiry clause' which is analogous to the old doctrine of notice11.

  2. Explain and critically analyse the process under the Land Registration Act 2002 for: ...

    In this context, I feel the role of interest becomes very important. A registrable disposition, as said before, is binding on the part of the parties involved in the purchase of the estate. The interest has to be registered and there are only some cases under which the interest is not part of registrable disposition.

  1. Property Law - Problem Question

    taking effect in possession, at a market price (s54(2) LPA 1925). Periodic tenancies, which will not necessarily last for longer than 3 years, have been included2. The lease must 'take effect in possession'; that is to say immediately (Long v Tower Hamlets LBC (1998)

  2. Proprietary Estoppel Remedies

    it "could not be right" to confer something which has been clearly denied by parliament. This represents the idea of "what is right" which is key to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, and is a principle which is at the very heart of the entire legal system.

  1. The rules governing the creation of implied easements are in need of reform. Discuss ...

    forming the subject matter of a grant.2 This classic formulation has survived for over 50 years, and as we will see, it has regularly proved to be the case that regardless of what label a particular right is given, if it satisfies Danckwert J's criteria, it will be found to be an easement.

  2. Land law problem question - access

    the his interest and he failed to disclose his interest, interest will not override, if it is reasonable to have disclosed. If he can satisfy the requirement under Sch 3 para 2, he is likely to have an overriding interest. Livesy?s right is capable of being overreached (s2 LPA 1925[126]).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work