Covenants- step 1
Cov running of the benefit- common law
smith and snipes hall farm
must touch and concern the land
Cov running of the benefit- equity
federated homes case
crest v nicholson
land must be identifiable
roake v chadha
must be no contrary intention
running of the burden- common law
austerberry v corp of oldham
burden cannot pass to successors
halsall v brizell
someone who wishes to take advantage of a service must comply with corresponding obligation- doctrine of mutual benefit and burden
running of the burden- equity
London v Allen
covenantee must at the time of the creation of the Cov have owned land for protection of which the Cov is made
Gafford v graham
inconsistent usage discharges the restrictive Cov
releasing/ discharging restrictive covs
WHAT TO MENTION
Briefly consider the position at common law but show awareness that as the question requires discussion of the running of the burden in equity it will be necessary to “match” this by discussing running of the benefit in equity as well.
what is an easement?
a right benefitting a piece of land (dominant tenement) that is enjoyed over land owned by someone else (servient tenement)
is it a legal easement?
s1(2) LPA 1925
- is capable of subsisting at law (legal interest)
- to be legal it must be created—
- by deed (expressly or impliedly)
- and for an interest equivalent to freehold or leasehold
is the right capable of existing as an easement?
peacock v custins
must be a dominant and servient tenement
Pugh v savage
easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
3 main requirement for an easement to be capable of being granted by deed
sub criteria to determine whether the right is capable of being granted as an easement
regis prop v redman
an easement cannot impose a duty
race v ward
cannot involve taking away part of the land (Except water)