Thamesmead Town Ltd v Allotey (2000)


  • The purchasers of a flat in the Thamesmead estate covenanted to pay a proportion of the costs of repair of the footpaths and communal areas in the estate
  • The purchasers also covenanted to ensure that any subsequent purchaser would covenant to same effect
  • The purchasers re-sold the flat to the defendant, failing to ensure that any equivalent covenant was made
  • The original covenantee sought to enforce the covenant against the defendant, who refused to pay the demanded £200


  • Could the defendant be forced to pay?


  • Yes


  • Although there was no direct covenant, the Thamesmead estate constituted a scheme of development which facilitated the applicability of the doctrine of benefit and burden
  • The doctrine requires only a burden relevant to and enabling the exercise of a right and and the opportunity to choose whether to accept that benefit and burden
  • The defendant had already chosen to accept the benefit, making the choice element a non-issue, and could be charged ~£40 for enjoyed the benefit of the communal areas without accepting the burden to contribute to their maintenance
  • The full £200 could not be ordered as the order had to be reduced to account for only the benefits accepted by the defendant
RELATED CASE  Hunt v Luck (1902)

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 27th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy