Goodman v Elwood 
- 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)
- 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?
- Yes, no and no respectively
- 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)
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 27th April 2015