Chapter 20 Self-test questions

. Which of the following covenants is a restrictive covenant?

A covenant not to allow a building to fall into disrepair.

A covenant to leave a piece of land as an open space.

A covenant to keep the trees on a piece of land below a certain height.

A covenant not to allow a drainage canal to be blocked by rubbish or debris.

. John owned two properties in London, situated just five miles apart. The properties are North House and South House. He sells South House to Keith, and Keith covenants not to use South House for any trade or business. The covenant is expressed to be 'for the benefit of the land which John retains in London'. Is there a valid restrictive covenant?

Yes, a restrictive covenant is valid provided the dominant and servient tenement are situated within the same town or city.

No, as the covenant does not identify the dominant land.

No, as the dominant land is too far away.

No, because the covenant is in restraint of trade.

. Larice has just purchased Greenacre, a large country estate. It is clear that Greenacre (or parts of Greenacre) are subject to a wide range of covenants, some of them positive, some of them restrictive. Speaking in general terms, which of the following propositions is correct?

Larice will have to observe all the covenants.

Larice will have to observe only the restrictive covenants. She can safely ignore all the positive covenants.

Larice can safely ignore all of the covenants.

Larice should observe all the restrictive covenants, and also those positive covenants which fall within the mutual benefit and burden principle.

. In 1990, Dan owned two farms in the parish of Hambridge: Hollowtree Farm and Riverfield Farm. In that year he sold Riverfield to Jethro. In the conveyance, Jethro covenanted not to use Riverfield for purposes other than agriculture. This covenant was expressed to be 'for the benefit of and with the owners for the time being of Hollowtree, Streamfield and Bigwood Farms'. Streamfield and Bigwood are two other farms within Hambridge parish.
Dan retains ownership of Hollowtree. Streamfield was owned in 1990 by Ned, and he still owns it. Bigwood was owned in 1990 by Walter, but he subsequently sold it to the current owner, Gurpal.
Jethro has just sold Riverfield to Property Developments PLC. Who can enforce the restrictive covenant as an original covenantee?

Only Dan.

Dan and Ned.

Dan, Ned and Gurpal.

All people who owned farms in Hambridge Parish in 1990.

. In 1997, Fred owned both Northacre and Southacre, adjoining fields of similar size. In that year he sold Southacre to George. George covenanted not to build on Southacre. The covenant was validly annexed only 'to the whole of Northacre'.
In 2010, Fred sold part of Northacre to Harry. In 2017, he sold the rest of Northacre to Ian. In 2019, Kerim bought Southacre. Who can, by virtue of annexation, enforce the covenants against Kerim?

Nobody.

Harry.

Ian.

Both Harry and Ian.

. The Duke of Dunstable sells one acre on the edge of his 20,000 acre Bunthorne Estate. The purchaser, Angie, covenants not to build on her one acre. The covenant is expressed to be 'for the whole of the Bunthorne Estate, and each and every part thereof'. Parts of the Bunthorne Estate are five miles from Angie's acre.
Patience now buys one acre from the Duke's Bunthorne Estate. The conveyance makes no mention of the right to enforce the restrictive covenant. Does Patience have the right to enforce the covenant?

Yes, whatever the location of her one acre.

Only if Angie's acre is close to Patience's.

No, as there was no mention of the covenant in the conveyance to Patience.

No, as the Duke clearly would never have intended other purchasers of tiny bits of his land to obtain the right to enforce the restrictive covenant.

. In 1998, Algernon sold Pride Land to Confederated Homes PLC. Pride Land was ten acres of land in Sheffield, ripe for housing development. Confederated Homes covenanted not to build more than 100 houses on Pride Land. Algernon retained land ripe for development adjoining Pride Land. He also owned enormous amounts of land scattered throughout the county of Yorkshire. The restrictive covenant was expressed to be 'for the benefit of all the lands retained by Algernon in the county of Yorkshire'.
Between 1998 and 2001, Algernon sold off most of his land in Yorkshire to (literally) hundreds of different purchasers. The sales included part of the land adjoining Pride Land.
In 2002, Lakeside Homes Ltd. bought Pride Land from Confederated Homes. They took legal advice as to who could enforce the 100 houses covenant from a lawyer who favoured the broad interpretation of the Federated Homes case. What was his advice? (Assume that there have been no assignments of the benefit of the covenant.)

Nobody can enforce.

Only Algernon can enforce.

Algernon can enforce, together with anybody who has bought land in Yorkshire from Algernon

Algernon can enforce, together with anybody who owns land in the vicinity of Pride Land bought from Algernon.

. Same facts as in Question 7, except:
(1) the sale to Confederated Homes was in 2012;
(2) the sale to Lakeside Homes was in 2015;
(3) between 2012 and 2014, Algernon sold most of his land in Yorkshire;
(4) Algernon owned a lot of land in Sheffield, but none immediately adjoining Pride Land. He has sold all his Sheffield Land.
Who can enforce the '100 houses' covenant? (Assume that there have been no assignments of the benefit of the covenant.)

Nobody.

Only Algernon can enforce.

All people who have bought land in Sheffield from Algernon.

All people who have bought land from Algernon situated reasonably close to Pride Land.

. Florinda owned numbers 13 and 25 Acacia Avenue, two houses about 50 metres apart. In 2008 she sold number 13 to Gregor, who covenanted not to use the house for business purposes (the conveyance did not mention dominant land). In 2012 Florinda died, leaving number 25 to her son Igor. Neither her will nor the 'assent' from her executors mentioned any right to enforce the covenant over number 13. In 2013, Igor sold number 25 to Kwame.
The conveyance expressly included a clause assigning to Kwame the right to enforce the restrictive covenant. In 2014, Jan bought number 13, and has started using the house for a business. Can Kwame enforce the covenant?

No, because there is not a complete chain of assignments.

Seemingly yes, by virtue of the assignment rules.

Yes, by virtue of 'statutory annexation'.

Yes, by virtue of the 'building scheme' rules.

. Which of the following propositions is correct regarding a building scheme?

For a building scheme, all that is needed is a group of properties within a defined area subject to similar restricted covenants.

For a building scheme, all that is needed is that the common vendor intended the restrictive covenants on plots/houses in a defined area to be mutually enforceable.

For a building scheme, what is needed is that the common vendor intended the restrictive covenants on the plots/houses in a defined area to be mutually enforceable, and that the purchasers from the vendor had the common intention and understood that the covenants were to be mutually enforceable.

For a building scheme, what is needed is that the common vendor intended the restrictive covenants on the plots/houses in a defined area to be mutually enforceable, and that the original owners of the plots/houses, when they bought, understood that the covenants were to be mutually enforceable.

. Which of the following propositions is correct, regarding restrictive covenants over land which is unregistered title?

The restrictive covenants, as they are in a deed, will be legal interests which will automatically bind purchasers.

The restrictive covenants are registrable as land charges, and must be registered so as to be binding on a purchaser.

The restrictive covenants are subject to the doctrine of notice, and will be void against good faith purchasers without notice of the covenants.

Restrictive covenants are either subject to the doctrine of notice, or registrable as a land charge, depending on the date the restrictive covenant is entered into.

. Until 2008, Edward owned two adjoining large detached houses, East House and West House. Both have substantial gardens. In 2008, he sold East House to George. George entered into a restrictive covenant, expressly annexed to West House, that he would not build any extension to East House. Edward did not enter into any restrictive covenants.
George has now obtained planning permission to build an extension to his house to accommodate his elderly parents. Edward is contemplating seeking an injunction. In what circumstances will the court refuse an injunction?

Edward has just built an extension on to his house.

The planning permission was expressly granted 'notwithstanding the restrictive covenant on East House'.

Edward delayed until the extension was built and George's parents had moved in.

Work did not start on the extension for two years, as George had difficulty raising finance. Edward sought an injunction the moment he saw builders working on East House.

. Charley is the dominant owner to a restrictive covenant which restricts the types of houses which can be built on Blackacre. Lakeside Homes PLC have just built houses on Blackacre which are in breach of the covenants. However, they are of a very attractive design, and enhance the appearance of the area.
Charley seeks damages, realising that seeking a demolition injunction would be hopeless. How much in damages will he get?

None, as the appearance of the area has been enhanced.

100% of the profits made by Lakeside Homes, as a punishment for their illegal behaviour.

50% of the profits made by Lakeside Homes, as this is the 'price' Charley could ask for varying the covenants.

A small percentage of the profits made by Lakeside Homes, as a price for Charley agreeing to vary the covenants.

Quiz Content