Rhone v Stephens 
- Land was divided into a house and a cottage; with one bedroom of the house supported by the cottage
- The house owner covenanted to keep in good repair the part of the cottage supporting the house (positive covenant)
- The cottage fell into disrepair after the claimant had purchased it, with assignment of the benefit of the covenant
- Could the executrix of the house owner (first successor of the covenantor) be sued by the claimant (successor of the cottage owner and covenantee)?
- The burden of a covenant, just as was said in Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885), will not pass as common law due to privity issues
- Equity does not contradict this rule where positive covenants are concerned, and nor does s 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (which provides that a covenantor makes a covenant on behalf of his successors without contrary intention)
- If Parliament wished to change this rule prospectively (i.e. for covenants not yet created only), it could
- The doctrine of benefit and burden was inapplicable as the obligation to repair was independent of any possible obligation to support the house
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 27th April 2015