Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties [1980]


  • There existed some land labelled red, green, pink and blue, along with planning permission for 1250 homes
  • The defendant purchased the blue land, and covenanted not to build more than 300 homes on that land
  • The claimant purchased the green land with express assignment of the benefit of the defendant’s covenant, and the red land with no such assignment
  • The defendant obtained planning permission for more than 300 houses to be built on the blue land (332 houses)


  • Could the claimant enforce the covenant by virtue of owning both plots of land?


  • Yes


  • Section 78(1) provided that the benefit of a covenant would be annexed to land if it was intended to run with that land (not personal), and that land was touched and concerned
  • It is not difficult to satisfy the requirement that the benefit be intended to run with the land
  • Unlike in common law, the benefit of a covenant may pass to benefitted land even where that land has been subdivided. The benefit will pass to each part of land subdivided
RELATED CASE  St Edmundsbury and Ipswitch Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) [1975]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 27th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy