Top Left Background Top Right Background
Bottom Right Background

Halsall v Brizell [1957]

Facts

  • Under a building scheme (scheme of development), a covenant required purchasers to pay reasonable costs towards the repair of the roads, sea walls, promenade and sewers in the area
  • One of the original plots was sold on, then split into 3 flats
  • The defendant claimed that he would only be liable for the maintenance fee of one plot, not for each of the flats

Issue

  • Was the maintenance fee enforceable for each of the three flats?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The covenant in its own right was a positive covenant, and so could not be enforced as its burden would not have passed to the successors of land living in the flats
  • The defendant, however, was not entitled to the benefit of the roads, sea walls, promenade and sewers without accepting the accompanying and linked burden, under what it now known as the doctrine of benefit and burden
  • Rhone v Stephens [1994] approved this case, but also distinguished it on its facts
Goto Top
Close Notification

Recent News

Other News