Land Law - Covenants

Watch this thread
louisex912
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Hi there.

Hoping somebody can help me get my head around restrictive covenants and successors in titles

Say there are two properties, A and B. Property A is owned by the covenantee and Property B is owner by the covenantor. The restrictive covenant means that no buildings over a certain size can be built in Property Bs garden.

The original covenantee and the covenantor to the restrictive covenant have sold their properties and have successors in titles. The original covenantee now wants to stop the new owner of property B from building in their garden with hope of relying on the restrictive covenant.

Can they do this as they were not an original party to the contract? I was under the impression that burdens cannot be passed down through common law so it cannot be done.

Thank you for any help
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The burden of a positive covenant will not pass to the successor of the servient land whether at common law or in equity
0
reply
louisex912
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by james_law)
The burden of a positive covenant will not pass to the successor of the servient land whether at common law or in equity
Thank you! I thought this

Now can an an original covenantee enforce a restrictive covenant to a new successor in title on the covenantors land when both properties have been sold on?
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by louisex912)
Now can an an original covenantee enforce a restrictive covenant to a new successor in title on the covenantors land when both properties have been sold on?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean can a SIT enforce the restrictive covenant against another SIT?
0
reply
louisex912
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by james_law)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean can a SIT enforce the restrictive covenant against another SIT?
Not quite, can the original person who benefits from the restrictive covenant enforce the restrictive covenant against another SIT when he no longer lives at the property he originally benefited from (so the original person also has a SIT)? I hope this makes sense

(sorry english is not my first language so I should have spent longer typing that out!)
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by louisex912)
Not quite, can the original person who benefits from the restrictive covenant enforce the restrictive covenant against another SIT when he no longer lives at the property he originally benefited from (so the original person also has a SIT)? I hope this makes sense

(sorry english is not my first language so I should have spent longer typing that out!)
It's no worry, I think its the nature of the scenario that is causing the confusion not you

The most likely answer would be no because they dont own the land. This is because the first stage of the test is that, 'The covenant benefits land owned by the person seeking to enforce it'. The covenant must “touch and concern” or relate to the land owned by the person seeking to enforce the covenant
1
reply
louisex912
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by james_law)
It's no worry, I think its the nature of the scenario that is causing the confusion not you

The most likely answer would be no because they dont own the land. This is because the first stage of the test is that, 'The covenant benefits land owned by the person seeking to enforce it'. The covenant must “touch and concern” or relate to the land owned by the person seeking to enforce the covenant
Thank you so much, this was my original thought but I think yes you are right with the scenario confusing me.

So the covenant could possibly be enforced by the new SIT to the land once I have proved it has passed through equity ? 😊
Last edited by louisex912; 2 years ago
0
reply
username3689312
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by louisex912)
So the covenant could possibly be enforced by the new SIT to the land once I have proved it has passed through equity ? 😊
Potentially as long as it meets the relevant criteria that it has passed to the SIT.

See the following link for the relevant information; http://www.propertylawuk.net/printab...tsbenefit.html
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (114)
38.26%
The paper was reasonable (143)
47.99%
Not feeling great about that exam... (28)
9.4%
It was TERRIBLE (13)
4.36%

Watched Threads

View All