Freehold covenants

Question 0

Halsall v Brizell

Answer 0

a man who takes the benefit of a deed is bound by a condition contained in it, though he does not execute it (Principle of mutual benefit and burden)

Question 1

Austerberry v Oldham

Answer 1

basic rule, burden does not bind a successor in title

Question 2

Rhone v Stephens

Answer 2

narrow interpretation of Halsell v Brizell

Question 3

Federated Homes v Mill

Answer 3

s. 78 LPA 1925 held to annex the benefit of a covenant to the land and to be enforceable not only by successors in title, but also by those with derivative interests. (Court of Appeal decision, thus always better to annex the covenant expressly)

Question 4

Tulk v Moxhay

Answer 4

equity will enforce a covenant against a successor in title to the original covenantor where that successor had notice of that covenant, if (a) covenant is restrictive in nature (b) covennatee owned land benefited by the covenant (c) parties intended the burden to run (express wording or s. 79 LPA 1925)