• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10

Covenants in land law.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

A covenant in land law is a promise created by deed1 between two parties, one providing the promise not to engage in an activity (negative) or to do a positive action on their own land for the benefit of the other parties neighbouring land e.g. preservation of non-business character in residential areas. Covenants between freeholders contain two aspects; a benefit to the person receiving the obligation and a corresponding burden to the provider. The rules relating to transmission of the benefit of the covenant are independent from the transmission of a burden. It is possible for the benefit to run to 'successors in title' of the original covenantee but for the burden to have been destroyed or to bind original covenantor only (see later), and vice versa. The benefit of a covenant will pass provided that the covenant 'touches and concerns'2 the land of the original covenantee at the time it was made. This means property law is concerned with the transmission of proprietary rights, not personal advantages. This ensures the title is not cluttered up by obligations that are merely temporary, ambiguous and personal in nature, the conveyance of land is unfettered. Diagram to illustrate parties involved. A = COVANANTEE - Alan has benefit of covenant (Freehold owner) (receives the promise) B = COVENANTOR - Justin has burden of covenant and the person whom gives the benefit. (Freehold owner) C = SUCCESSOR IN TITLE TO ORGINAL COVENANTEE = Colin buys from Alan in 1995. D = SUCESSOR IN TITLE TO ORGINAL COVENANTOR= Kenneth buys from Justin takes assignment. ...read more.

Middle

Unless no expressed exclusion clause in the deed of covenants is found when the property was conveyed. (We would need to examine the deed - see footnote). As well as satisfying the above benefit conditions we must also show that Kenneth has the burden of the covenant. At common law In Rhone's and Stephens, case affirmed,6 that positive or negative burdens never run with the land to future successors in title.7 Thus Colin cannot sue Kenneth directly for breach although we can satisfy the benefit passing at law, we cannot demonstrate that Kenneth's land is burdened with them. Colin can enforce the covenant against any person who is subject to the burden of the covenant at law, usually the original covenantor. Colin could only sue the original party Justin (coventantor) to seek damages (see discussion later), for breach of obligations given by him as they remain for all time The rules of EQUITY may help here, the first three conditions for benefit to run must be met the same as they are in LAW (discussed above shows they would appear to be satisfied or implied by statute). The fourth condition differs instead of intention we must look at how transmission occurs i.e. how the covenant is attached to the land and would run with all future owners by ways prescribed by equity8 these methods being annexation, assignment and scheme of development: Annexation of benefit(attached to land)-there exists 3 types * Express - by reference to the wording which relates to the dominant land and not to a particular individual. ...read more.

Conclusion

In Thamesmead22 this free choice was shown, but in this case Kenneth there appears to be no choice but to use the pathway as their appears to be no other access the to the public highway. If it is used at least on one occasion, then must pay towards maintenance. This doctrine can apply in respect of covenant 1 only. Covenant 1 is positive in nature and will not pass at law or equity for Colin to enforce. There is possibility to insist on payment due to use of the road, if Kenneth is using the private access road. Covenant 2 is negative in nature but has a personal element and thus would not pass at law and equity. Covenant 3 is negative. The claimant if successful in law and showing that loss has occurred will be awarded nominal damages. If pursuing enforcement of covenants in equity, only equitable remedies are available which are discretionary i.e. Injunction. Kenneth has the option to apply to the land tribunal using s 84 of LPA, which has powers to discharge or modify the covenants, which are restrictive and impeding in nature and ultimately effect reasonable use of private land e.g. being able to dry washing. "Any delay in issuing proceedings may result in damages in lieu being awarded instead of an injunction, where there is a substantial delay a loss of right to relief through acquiescence would occur.23 "If the claimant is suing in equity, he must establish that the burden has passed to the defendant in equity....if the claimant is suing at law, he must establish that the defendant is subject to the burden at law. ...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. General Principles of Land Law, Fixtures, Chattels

    LRA 1925 was completely replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002, and the provisions considering the issues of overriding interest can be found now in schedules one and three. Although the case law based on 1925 Act still is thought to be a good law.

  2. Would the abolishment of adverse possession in relation to both registered and unregistered land ...

    There are many advantages to the extension of the veto rule so that it would also cover unregistered land, the main advantage being consistency. Both unregistered and registered title owners would be given the same protection against adverse possession. Logically, this should be the case, as individuals pay the same price for land, despite whether it is unregistered or registered.

  1. Overreaching, Land Law

    This is a somewhat unfair consequence, but the reality of it is it could actually happen. Notice, this refers to the way in which someone can be made aware of any equitable interests which apply, obtaining this information if possible is key.

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

    Would your advice to Charles and Charmaine change if Derek and his brother Bob were joint registered proprietors of Rose Cottage at the time of sale to Charles and Charmaine? In the first scenario, the sellers Derek and Elizabeth were partners in a specific transaction involving an immovable asset.

  1. Property Law - Problem Question

    had not set foot in her London house for over a year was held not to be in actual occupation. However in this case one can readily see substantial differences; it is likely that the residence is G's main home, her absence is clearly construed as a holiday with the unambiguous intention to return...

  2. Land Registration Act 2002

    Where an individual owns rights over an area greater than he is in actual occupation of, Ferrishurst v Wallcite offers guidance. In that case, an option to purchase the lease of land greater than the area in actual occupation was held to be overriding.

  1. Following the decision in Stack v Dowden1, the law concerning co-ownership and the parties ...

    but cannot be singularly conclusive, nor a presumptive starting point, as the whole conduct must be taken into account (i.e. subsequent contributions, including non-financial) thereby forming the characteristics of a constructive trust. ________________ [1] [2007] UKHL 17 [2] [1970] AC 777 [3] [1971] AC 886 [4] Goodman v Gallant [1986]

  2. Land law problem question - access

    a grantee must be a definite person or body.[32]Besides, the right must be sufficiently definite, which must be capable of reasonably of exact description.[33] Lastly, the right must be within the general nature of rights capable of existing as easements.[34] This is unlikely to be a problem as rights of way are an established category of easement.

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