Property Law

Property Law

Chuck decides to go into property development. He finds for sale a

row of three derelict empty cottages close to the Thames Estuary at

Feversham Creek, and a strip of land between them and the Creek. He

thinks property values here are about to rise dramatically. The whole

area is owned by the Mockingbird Estate. Chuck successfully negotiates

purchase of the cottages, and of the strip by the Creek. In the

conveyance, both Chuck and Mockingbird covenant not to use their land

in the area for industrial purposes.

Chuck is now ready to start work on the cottages, but has these

concerns:

(a) Chuck wants the buyers of each plot to be able to enforce the

industrial purposes covenants against Mockingbird and against each

other.

Purchasers from covenantors are in fact bound by restrictive

covenants. This is a restrictive covenant in that it restricts the

purchasers use of the land – Chuck cannot use his land for industrial

purposes and Neither can Mockingbird – they have been limited. This

rule was set down in the case of Tulk v Moxhay[1], which showed the

idea that it would be inequitable if the covenantor could purchase the

land with the restrictions one day and sell it free of all covenants

the next. In this way, when Chuck sells his land in the 3 plots, each

should have on the charges register the restrictive covenant not to

use the land for industrial purposes.

The neighbouring land, so all three plots and Mockingbird Estates,

will be able to enforce the covenant against each other as any

neighbouring land which benefits can enforce the burdening covenant.

(b) The land registry entries for the three ...

... middle of paper ...

...nt she

did not put in an offer of her own.

Therefore, if this was taken to be a proprietary estoppel, Delia could

bring an action (because this type of estoppel can give rise to a

cause of action and act as a “sword”. ) Chuck would consequently be

unwise to have nothing more to do with Delia as she could in effect

bring an action against him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 41 ER 1143

[2] Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131 at p163

[3] Property Law – Roger J Smith, 4th Ed, p490

[4] James v Stevenson [1893] AC 162

[5] James v Stevenson [1893] AC 162, p168

[6] Property Law – Roger J Smith, 4th Ed, p514

[7] Rance v Elvin (1985) 50 P&CR 9

[8] Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310

[9] Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179