Freehold Covenants
a. Definitions
- Restrictive covenant
o Equitable interest attached to B’s land that allows B, a party with a freehold or
lease of some land that benefits from the covenant, to prevent A from making a
particular, limited use of some nearby land owned by A
o Based on A’s promise that neither A nor future owners of A’s land will use the
land in that way
o Eg. If A promises B that he will not build on his own land without B’s consent, A
has the burden and is known as the covenantor
o B has the benefit and is known as the covenantee; can sue if A breaches the
covenant
- Positive Covenants
o Where A (who has a freehold or lease of neighbouring land) has promised B,
that A will take some positive action
o Only gives B a personal right, and not a proprietary right even if that promise
benefits B’s land and is intended by A to bind future owners of A’s land
- Negative Covenants
o A promises B that A will refrain from taking certain action
- Contrast with Easements: Easements automatically become part of the dominant
land, while restrictive covenants do not
Important Cases
- Tulk v Moxhay (4 requirements to transmit burden of negative covenants)
- London Council County v Allen (Content: Dominant land must be capable of benefitting
from covenant)
- Rhone v Stephens (Content: A’s promise must be negative)
- Halsall v Brizell (Mutual Benefit and Burden Principle)
- Thamesmead Town v Allotey (2-stage test for burden/benefit principle)
- Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties (shows effect of s.78 LPA 1925: requires
intention that benefit of covenant will become part of dominant land)
- Re Dolphin’s Conveyance (Requirements for scheme of development)
a. Definitions
- Restrictive covenant
o Equitable interest attached to B’s land that allows B, a party with a freehold or
lease of some land that benefits from the covenant, to prevent A from making a
particular, limited use of some nearby land owned by A
o Based on A’s promise that neither A nor future owners of A’s land will use the
land in that way
o Eg. If A promises B that he will not build on his own land without B’s consent, A
has the burden and is known as the covenantor
o B has the benefit and is known as the covenantee; can sue if A breaches the
covenant
- Positive Covenants
o Where A (who has a freehold or lease of neighbouring land) has promised B,
that A will take some positive action
o Only gives B a personal right, and not a proprietary right even if that promise
benefits B’s land and is intended by A to bind future owners of A’s land
- Negative Covenants
o A promises B that A will refrain from taking certain action
- Contrast with Easements: Easements automatically become part of the dominant
land, while restrictive covenants do not
Important Cases
- Tulk v Moxhay (4 requirements to transmit burden of negative covenants)
- London Council County v Allen (Content: Dominant land must be capable of benefitting
from covenant)
- Rhone v Stephens (Content: A’s promise must be negative)
- Halsall v Brizell (Mutual Benefit and Burden Principle)
- Thamesmead Town v Allotey (2-stage test for burden/benefit principle)
- Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties (shows effect of s.78 LPA 1925: requires
intention that benefit of covenant will become part of dominant land)
- Re Dolphin’s Conveyance (Requirements for scheme of development)
