Goodman v Elwood [2013]

Facts

  • A third party¬†sold part of an industrial estate to Elwood, who covenanted to maintain a road providing access to his purchased land. The third party covenanted, on behalf of himself and his successors, to contribute to Elwood’s maintenance costs
  • The third party also sold a unit on his retained land to Goodman, with a covenant that provided Goodman would contribute to the third party’s maintenance costs for the road (to in turn be paid to Elwood)
  • Elwood subsequently extended the road by 1 metre, and demanded contribution from Goodman (and others in similar positions to him)

Issues

  • Could the doctrine of benefit and burden apply where only part of the original benefiting was acquired?
  • Did burdens under the doctrine need registering?
  • Was Goodman liable to costs associated with extending the road?

Decision

  • Yes, no and no respectively

Reasoning

  • Subdivision does not affect the doctrine of benefit and burden’s effect, even without mechanism to distribute accordingly
  • The burden of a positive covenant does not create an interest in land, unlike a restrictive covenant, therefore does not need registering
  • As Goodman had no right to benefit from the 1 metre road (he was not allowed to use it), he was also not obliged to contribute to its maintenance (its burden)
RELATED CASE  Thompson v Foy [2010]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 27th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy