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?
- 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
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 27th April 2015