Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood
A covenant could not be enforced by neighbouring owners where the conveyance did not identify the land intended to be benefited.
Facts
Bath Rugby's ground, the Recreation Ground, was subject to a covenant made in 1922, when the land was sold, restricting the uses of the land, including against causing nuisance or annoyance. Bath Rugby wanted to redevelop its stadium, and applied to the court for a declaration that the covenant was not enforceable. Local residents argued that the benefit of the covenant had been annexed to their land, which had been part of the seller's land.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the covenant was not enforceable by the residents. The court said that, for the benefit of a covenant to be annexed to land, the land intended to be benefited must be identifiable from the conveyance, and evidence about the surrounding circumstances can be used only to clarify what the conveyance says, not to identify land that the conveyance does not refer to. The 1922 conveyance did not sufficiently identify the land intended to be benefited, applying Crest Nicholson v McAllister.
Related cases on freehold covenants
- Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45, [2020] 1 WLR 4783
- Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch D 750
- Re Ballard's Conveyance [1937] Ch 473
- Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004] EWCA Civ 410, [2004] 1 WLR 2409
- Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374
- Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594
- Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169
- Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 8 QBD 403
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
