|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
CrowVWood1970
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1971] 1 QB 77 (CA). The claimant bought a plot of farmland, in respect of which the
vendor had previously entered into an agreement to maintain fences next to the adjoining moorland.
The defendant kept sheep on the moorland, which strayed onto the defendant's land,
through holes in the fences which she (the defendant) had failed to maintain, and caused
damage. The claimant was awarded damages by the county court, but the CourtOfAppeal
found for the defendant. The question at issue was whether the claimant was in breach
of a duty to maintain the fence, which would make her actions, and not those
of the defendant, the legal cause of the damage. She argued that the obligation
to maintain the fence was not a RestrictiveCovenant, because it imposed expenditure
on her. As a positive convenant, it was not capable of running with the land and
being enforceable against her. The court of appeal decided that the obligation was
not a covenant at all, it was an easement.
This is a rather odd decision, because easements are generally held not to be enforceable
against successor in title if they impose positive obligations. However, keeping fences
in good order is an essential part of getting along with one's neighbours; after all,
everyone's land adjoins someone else's land. Nevertheless, the right to have a fence
maintained remains one of the few positive obligations that are capable of running
with the land.
LandAndPropertyLaw
TortLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|