| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
[1957] Ch D 169 (CA). The defendants purchased a plot of land that was subject to a FreeholdCovenant to pay a contribution towards the upkeep of roads and sea wall in a building scheme. The claimants wished to enforce the covenant against the defendants, who were unwilling to pay the full amount that the claimants asserted was due. The claim succeeded, despite the covenant's being positive, rather than restrictive. The defendants could not rely on the rule in AusterberryVOldhamCorporation1885, that the burden of only restrictive covenants could run with the land. The reasoning was the it would be inequitable for the defendants to take the benefit of a covenant (i.e., the roads and see wall in good order) without being bound by the burden.
Halsall is quite narrow in scope -- it only applies where there are mutual obligations expressed in covenants. There have been attempts to widen it (see RhoneVStephens1994), but so far the courts have preferred that any changes in the law of positive covenants be expressed in legislation.
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |