Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004]

Facts

  • A purchaser purchased land subject to a restrictive covenant
  • The covenant did not disclose the extent of the benefitted land

Issue

  • Was the covenant enforceable?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • It would be oppressive for a purchaser to have to establish the extent of the benefit of a covenant; the land benefitted must be easily ascertainable – it wasn’t on these facts
RELATED CASE  Phipps v Pears [1965]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 12th May 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy