Restrictive covenants

A restrictive covenant requires the covenantor not to do something, whether that is building or using the land for particular purposes. Unlike 'positive' covenants, the burden of a restrictive covenant is capable of 'running with the land', so that successive owners or occupiers are bound by the restriction.

Covenants restricting the use of land imposed by a seller may be divided into three classes:

•
covenants imposed for the seller’s own benefit
•
covenants imposed as owner of other land, of which the land sold formed a part, and intended to protect or benefit the unsold land
•
covenants on a sale of land to various buyers who, with their respective successors in title, are intended mutually to enjoy the benefit of, and be bound by, the covenants

The first category of covenants is personal to the seller and only enforceable by them, unless expressly assigned.

The second category ‘run’ with the land and are enforceable without express assignment by the owner for the time being of the land for the benefit of which they were imposed.

The third category is most usually

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Debt respite scheme—jurisdiction (Seculink Ltd v Forbes)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In the first appellate decision at High Court level on the surprisingly far-reaching Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Debt Respite Regulations), SI 2020/1311, the High Court allowed the creditor’s appeal in a decision which is decidedly creditor-friendly. Sir Anthony Mann held that: (1) the courts retain the jurisdiction at all times to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’, regardless of whether a creditor has exercised the review machinery under the Debt Respite Regulations; and, (2) where proceedings are live when a moratorium is entered into, a creditor does not need the court’s permission to proceed up to entry of judgment. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Was the tenant’s intention to return to the property as an owner sufficient to satisfy the ‘tenant condition’ (Hackney London Borough Council v Weintraub)

Local Government analysis: This judgment is another in a string of decisions concerning the interpretation of the tenant condition. The issue in this case was narrower than in previous hearings. Hackney appealed the previous judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli made in April 2024. Hackney appealed on the basis that an intention to return to the property as an owner cannot satisfy the ‘tenant condition’. The judge in this case disagreed with such an assertion and the appeal was dismissed. There were other elements to the appeal, but those fell by the wayside. The Judge held that the tenancy condition can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant. It was held that there is no suggestion within the legislative provision that a return as a tenant is required. The condition remains satisfied if a tenant intends to return in any capacity, as long as this can be measured and shown against objective ascertained fact. Written by Clive Adams, head of Housing Management at Birketts LLP.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Privy Council decision confirming that leases can be terminated for repudiatory breach and Court of Appeal decisions on the ‘tenant condition’, the Tenant Fees Act 2019, and the status of an unregistered landlord for the purposes of the right to manage. It also includes High Court decisions on claims for property damage by an RTM company and for remedial expenditure to prevent damage caused by continuing nuisance, and Upper Tribunal decisions on the calculation of time periods, the evidence required to impose a civil penalty, and the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to review the rent under an assured tenancy, and publication of the minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News