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

Determining the true and ancient limits—why boundary agreements always bind successors in title (White v Alder)

Property Disputes analysis: The case involved a written boundary demarcation agreement entered into by two neighbours shortly before they each sold their respective properties. The subsequent owners found themselves in a dispute about the same boundary. The respondents, the Alders, sought to rely on the agreement, but the appellant, Mr White, argued that as a successor in title he was not bound by it—either at all or because he had no knowledge of it. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lady Justice Asplin, with whom Lord Justice Zacaroli and Sir Launcelot Henderson agreed, held that a boundary agreement binds successors in title because of its very nature. It delineates a boundary and therefore defines the property that can be transferred or conveyed. Since no one can transfer or convey more land than they own, a boundary agreement binds successors in title whether or not they know about it. Written by Tanita Cross, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

Homes England updates Cladding Safety Scheme guidance on social sector pre-tender support

Homes England has updated its Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) guidance adding clarification regarding the circumstances under which pre-tender support is available to social sector applicants. The update forms part of ongoing refinements to the CSS, which addresses fire risks associated with residential building cladding. The support, available until 31 March 2026, applies to registered providers and local authorities making applications either on hardship grounds or based on the proportion of leaseholders to total homes in a building. The funding can be used for pre-tender activities including design works and Fire Risk Appraisal of Exterior Walls costs.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: High Court decisions concerning a loan agreement found to constitute an enforceable, unregulated investment property loan, a claim for unjustified enrichment relating to work carried out on a residential property and analysis of the grant of an order for possession and sale due to the vesting of property in trustees, an appellant who was barred from pursuing a new claim for the first time on appeal, and an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerning the First-tier Tribunal’s appearance of bias in raising and determining an unpleaded issue in contractual liability for service charges dispute. It also includes a Court of Appeal decision that disclosure by the court of an assessor’s evaluation of evidence is not required unless fairness demands it, a Country Court decision concerning the vesting of a new lease of a whole building that must be made on terms equivalent to the forfeited head lease, analysis of the treatment of principal secured debt under a mental health crisis moratorium, the Civil Justice Council’s call for a single court to enforce unpaid civil judgments, publication of the minutes of the CPR Committee meeting held on 7 March 2025 and a round-up of the latest news from the Housing Ombudsman Service.

The treatment of principal secured debt under a mental health crisis moratorium (Seculink Ltd v Forbes)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment sets out the court’s treatment of the principal sum of a secured debt in a mental health crisis moratorium (MHCM) under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations), SI 2020/1311. In particular, it clarifies that the principal sum of a secured debt is not a ‘qualifying debt’ for the purposes of the Regulations, therefore allowing secured creditors to enforce such principal amount during a MHCM. The court also considered whether interest would continue to accrue on the principal during the MHCM and held that, as it is not a ‘moratorium debt’ under the Regulations, interest continues to run and is recoverable by creditors. Written by Kunal Gadhvi, partner at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News