Challenging restrictive covenants

A trend in property litigation has been the increase in the number of disputes and queries concerning restrictive covenants, mainly coming from developers looking to understand or challenge possible limits on their rights. 

Disputes could occur, for example, where a landowner is looking to enforce a restrictive covenant against an owner of neighbouring land (who nowadays is often a developer) both of whom are successors in title to the original vendor and purchaser who agreed the restrictive covenant. 

As the number of these queries and disputes has grown, two key points of challenge have emerged – intention to benefit and actual benefit.

loading staff

One of the key criteria for successfully enforcing a restrictive covenant is that there must have been an intention for the covenant to benefit the land. A new landowner does not simply inherit a covenant when they become a successor in title but there must actually have been an intention for the covenant to travel with the land to a new owner. 

The covenant may state this (an ‘express annexation’) but this is not always the case. If there is no express statement then section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘LPA’) ensures that the covenant is deemed also to be made with successors in title, as well as the original parties. 

However, there are limits to the assistance the LPA can provide and case law is not entirely clear – for example, in Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister it was found that the land in question must be identified as benefitting from the covenant for section 78 to apply. Although this doesn’t require an express statement to that effect (which would actually be express annexation anyway), it is not enough just to name the land in the conveyance, there must also be indication that it refers to the covenant. 

However, the court in Mohammad Zadeh v Joseph essentially found that this was not necessary. As this conflict proves, each case will be different and express annexation is always preferable.

Another key element for the application of section 78 is whether the covenant actually benefits the land. This is usually obvious but where it is not, the courts will often assume it was, seeing as it was agreed by the original parties to the covenant. However, recent case law has thrown some doubt on this – for example, Cosmichrome v Southampton City Council and 89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd v Hicks in which developers essentially challenged whether restrictive covenants actually benefitted neighbouring properties at all in order to remove their effect and enable development. 

It is therefore crucial now for landowners to be able to provide evidence that a covenant really does benefit their land in order to retain its effect.

As land usage in the UK continues to change and developers become more astute with respect to challenging restrictions on their business, it’s important for landowners to be aware of how to protect the restrictive covenants attached to their land.

Other areas for landlords/developers to consider are challenges under the competition act, tribunal applications and availability of indemnity insurance. 

For more information or advice on this topic please call our commercial property team on 0175 321 6399 for a free, no obligation initial chat with one of our legal advisors, or complete our online enquiry form and we will contact you directly. 

8.4 out of 10
Trustpilot logo4-stars on trustpilot Based on count 303

We're Great

It is our business to deliver legal services that work for our clients, and you can trust our specialists to take care of things on your behalf.

Our Trustpilot reviews

We cannot speak highly enough of this company, we would not hesitate to use them again in the future, which seems likely, and would recommend Stephensons to anyone seeking a top rate service.
View from a commercial property client

Is your business owed money?

Cashflow is at the centre of any successful business. Invoicing early and chasing payment should help keep cashflow moving however sometimes your polite reminders just aren’t enough and the money you are owed isn’t forthcoming. Unpaid debts...

Read more

Twitter commercial

Stephensons appoints new Head of Regulatory Law

Specialist regulatory solicitor and Partner, Carl Johnson , has been appointed as Head of Regulatory Law at the national law firm Stephensons. Carl joined Stephensons in 2010 and became a Partner at the firm in 2015. He specialises in professional...

Read more

Commercial property reorder

  • David Baybut
  • Kate Bullen
  • Jonathan Chadwick
  • ​Chris Graves
  • Louise Hebborn
  • Julie Ball
  • Francesca James
  • Jessica Culshaw
  • Paul Davies
  • Jonathon Waterhouse

We're always here for you

As an award-winning top 150 law firm, with over 450 staff based in offices across the country, you're never far from the advice you need.

Find your nearest Stephensons office and arrange a meeting

As an award-winning top 150 law firm, with over 450 staff based in offices across the country, you're never far from the advice you need.