Land Law Seminar 10 Group 3 by Samantha Jayne Roberts https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf en-us 2020-12-14 10:20:37 UTC 2020-12-14 12:30:23 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015444508 4 conditions must be fulfilled

1)      COVENANT MUST TOUCH AND CONCERN THE LAND OF THE COVENANTEE (it must be entered into for the benefit of the land):
SMITH AND SNIPES HALL FARM LTD v. RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT BOARD: affect meaning: relates to mode of occupation or, it affects land’s value
2)      COVENANTEE MUST HAVE A LEGAL ESTATE IN THE LAND BENEFITED
3)      CLAIMANT MUST ACQUIRE LEGAL ESTATE FROM ORIGINAL COVENANTEE (SMITH AND SNIPES HALL FARM LTD v. RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT BOARD)
4)      PURPOSE OF COVENANT MUST INCLUDE BENEFITING PROPERTY’S SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. (s 78 LPA1925: covenant treated as if it expresses it'll benefit subsequent owners even if not expressed).

]]> 2020-12-14 10:48:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015444508 https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015451206 DOES NOT PASS.

AUSTERBERRY v. OLDHAM CORPORATION and RHONE v. STEPHENS asserted this rule.

however, THAMESMEAD TOWN v. ALLOTEY said it'll run if common law rule can be circumvented.

1) Chain of Indemnity Covenant: Indemnity covenant means that if original covenantor is liable for breaches of his successor in title, any compensation he has to pay for their breaches, he can recover from the successors in title. So, a chain of this (seller 1 being indemnified by buyer 1/seller 2 and seller 2 being indemnified by buyer 2/seller 3 and so forth) can circumvent this rule.

2) Doctrine of Mutual Benefit & Burden: under halsall v brizell, person who has benefit of right must bear the burden.
there are several cases on this doctrine, but nonetheless...
wilkinson v kerdene: confirmed this doctrine can circumvent.]]> 2020-12-14 10:51:27 UTC https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015451206 https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015470961 4 conditions
1. covenant must be negative (haywood v brunswick: expenditure of money = positive)
Note: TULK V MOXHAY: covenant to maintain the land as an open space (MEANS TO NOT BUILD ON IT) -> negative covenant.
this case shows that covenants can be worded in a positive way, but are actually negative.

2. land must benefit from the covenant (ie, COVENANT MUST BE FOR BENEFIT OF LAND RETAINED BY COVENANTEE)

3. Covenant MUST touch and concern covenantee's land.
if servient land is much smaller than dominant land, then it is difficult to prove that every part of the dominant land benefits in the covenant.
RE BALLARD: covenant cannot be annexed to just a part of the land. covenant should've specified which parts of the land were to benefit when it concerns a huge land.

Exception: WROTHAM: negative covenant in 4000 acre land allowed. the covenant was to not make any developments without covenantee's approval.

4. intention to run with land of covenantor under s79(1) lpa1925. in case of registered land, shall be done through notice entry on register. in unregistered land, it will be under class d(ii) charge under land charges act 1972.]]> 2020-12-14 11:01:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015470961 https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015488930 any 1 of the 3 must be present.

1. ANNEXATION
a. express: deed includes the wording of annexation
b. implied: implied by circumstances (if court doesn’t find sufficient words of express annexation)
c. statutory: s78(1) lpa 1925.


WHERE s. 78 DOES NOT APPLY:

- If covenant expressly excludes annexation, so s. 78 will not apply: see Roake v. Chadha.

- Where finding of a contrary intention based on the construction of the covenant itself. e.g. City Inn v. Ten Trinity Square and Margerison v. Bates.

- If land in question is not identifiable:

Crest Nicholson v. McAllister-  in one of the conveyances, there was nothing which enabled the court to identify land intended to be benefited, so s. 78 could not help.

2. EXPRESS ASSIGNMENT
CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENTS OF COVENANT FROM ORIGINAL COVENANTEE TO SUCCESSOR

3. BUILDING SCHEME

LAND SOLD IN PLOTS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IMPOSED FOR BENEFIT OF PURCHASERS

ELLISTON v. REACHER

4 REQUIREMENTS:

- PARTIES DERIVE TITLE FROM A COMMON VENDOR

- COMMON VENDOR LAID OUT ESTATE IN DEFINED PLOTS

- RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY VENDOR WERE INTENDED FOR BENEFIT OF ALL PLOTS

- PURCHASER BOUGHT LAND ON BASIS THAT RESTRICTIONS WERE MUTUALLY ENFORCEABLE
]]> 2020-12-14 11:11:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015488930 https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015604040 original covenantee (brian) has retained dominant tenement (greenspace). ahmed has servient tenement only (meadow farm).

original parties: ahmed and brian. hence they have privity of contract. can the covenants be enforced on caroline by other residents? privity: other residents cant have benefit of covenant as 3rd parties. exception to privity: s56 lpa1925. they are not specifically named here but they are referred to by category (the category being "owner of properties in Meadow Lane"). Talk about Re Ecclesiastical. then, contracts (right of 3rd parties) act 1999; limitation of 1999 act: can only bring an action for damages against ahmed.

does caroline have burden of covenant? has burden passed to her at common law? no. exception: she has covenant to contribute to road (similar to austerberry). so, look at doctrine of mutual benefit and burden: caroline gets benefit to use the road only if she gets burden of it too. So she has to accept road's burden (pay for its upkeep) if she wants to enjoy the road. therefore, yes, caroline has burden as she wants to enjoy the road.

has burden passed at equity? C1 is positive. C2,C3,C4 are negative.

land benefits from covenant? yes.

touch and concern land? all covenants satisfy this.

intended to run with land? s79: deemed to be intended even if not expressly written. it is registered land [as ahmed bought it in 2011; compulsory registration post-2002. no need to tell why it is registered in exam. just say it's registered]. Thus protected by s34 notice. ]]> 2020-12-14 12:20:58 UTC https://padlet.com/sroberts292/8m3qh8lxf9vlg8jf/wish/1015604040