|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Rhone v Stephens (1994)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1994] 2 AC 310. A cottage attached to a large house was sold separately from the main
house, and the seller covenanted (see FreeholdCovenant) in the conveyance to
repair the shared roof. Before he could do so, both the main house and the cottage
were sold. The new owner of the cottage sought to enforce the covenant against the owner of
the main house. The general rule is that the burdens of positive covenants do not
run with the land, and cannot be enforced against successors in title of the original
covenantor. In this case the claimants sought to argue that either (1) the
rule in AusterberryVOldhamCorporation1885 should be changed, or that (2) the
covenant could be enforced under the rule in HalsallVBrizell1956. Both arguments
failed; (1) because the HouseOfLords was unwilling to make such a radical change in
law which had been followed for over a hundred years, and (2) because the covenant
to repair the roof was not part of a mutual obligation, in contrast to the
covenant to pay for upkeep of roads and sea wall in Halsall. The Halsall_ case
did not state that any burden in a deed could be enforced if any benefit was to be
enjoyed -- it said that the burden of a specific covenant can be enforced if
the benefit of that corresponding covenant is to be enjoyed.
The House was aware that this case does illustrate a defect in the enforcement
of covenants, and that the law should be changed. However, it preferred to
leave that to Parliament.
LandAndPropertyLaw
TortLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|