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

Covenants in land law.

Extracts from this document...


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.


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.


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. The Land Registration Act 2002 heralds major changes to the law and procedures regarding ...

    to assert his title to prevent the claimant's detriment and failure to do so would amount to equitable fraud. [68] As this exception will only be brought into force on 13 October 2004, registered owner will have the chance to restore moved boundaries to their correct positions where title has

  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. Land Law

    to illustrate this remedy. Clarke & Greer (2008 p.353) state that the mortgagee also has the option of the right to repossession of the mortgaged premises under the terms of the mortgage agreement, if there is failure of payment. In most cases, banks and building societies have no interest in possessing the mortgagor's premises; in order to access the

  2. 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.

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

    Thompson MP18 wrote that claims maybe sufficient to form on unambiguous statement that property will in fact be inherited but will seek an overall justice of the case. The second requirement for proprietary estoppel is that the claimant must have shown he relied on that promise and then changed his in reliance to that promise.

  2. Land law problem question - access

    for the land to be used in the particular way (Stafford v Lee[45]),[46] however fact didn?t show the presence of common intention. Since the right has been exercised for so many years, Bones might acquire an easement by prescription of via one of three modes: common law, lost modern grant

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

    The presumption that beneficial interest follows the legal ownership is imperative in order for a joint title to have any substance. For a trust to be at odds with a resulting trust, whereby one party is penalised for not being able to contribute as much financially as the other, despite

  2. Land Law Case. In advising Mary, it must be noted what rights she has ...

    years as is ruled in Prescriptions Act 1832 S.2 and this can be seen in the case of ?Reilly v Orange? (1955), by maintaining exclusive use is ensured, using it continuously during this period and doing this in a manner which makes it clear to the current owner.

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