Provided the conditions under s 78 LPA 1925 are satisfied, annexation of the benefit of a covenant to the dominant land is automatic.

Purchasers of building plots covenanted to contribute towards maintenance costs of roads and sewers in common use of the owners of all the building plots.

Where you wish to take the benefit of a deed, you must also submit to any corresponding burden that deed imposes.

A successor in title to the servient land started to build on that land in breach of a covenant. The council was refused an injunction to stop the building work.

To enforce a covenant, you must have a dominant land capable of benefiting from that covenant.

Rent obligation between landlord and tenant. Landlord assigned the reversion to the plaintiff. The tenant failed to pay rent and the plaintiff pursued the defendant, who stood as surety for the rent. The benefit of the rent obligation was deemed to have passed at common law to the plaintiff.

Benefit of a covenant may pass at common law where four requirements are met. A covenant is deemed to touch and concern the dominant land where any holder of that land would benefit, not just the original covenantee personally.

A covenant not to build and extracted for the benefit of a dominant land just less than 1,700 acres, was deemed not to be annexed to that land. Although expressed to benefit the whole of the dominant land, it was deemed to only benefit that part of the dominant land within the immediate vicinity of the servient land, a 16-acre plot. Express annexation had thus been unsuccessful.

For the benefit of a covenant to be annexed to the whole of the dominant land, it must be proven to touch and concern the whole of that land. (But see now Wrotham Park Estate Co v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974].)

A covenant to keep a roof in repair was deemed unenforceable against a successor to the original covenantor.

The burden of a positive covenant will not pass at common law to a successor in title to the original covenantor.

A conveyance stipulating that the benefit of a covenant would not pass to any successor of the dominant land unless it had been expressly assigned to him, was deemed to exclude the operation of automatic statutory annexation.

Automatic statutory annexation by virtue of s 78 LPA 1925 and the decision in Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] may be expressly excluded from operating.

Defendants entered into a covenant with the freehold owners of land subject to flooding, that they would maintain the banks of a river. An original covenantee conveyed her land to the 1st plaintiff together with the benefit of the covenant. The 2nd plaintiff occupied the dominant land under a tenancy. Both plaintiffs were entitled to enforce a breach of the covenant.

For the benefit of a covenant to pass at common law, the original covenantee and his successor must have held/holds now a legal estate in the dominant land. That legal estate need not be the same.

A covenant not to build was deemed enforceable against a successor in title to the original covenantor, since he was aware of the existence of the covenant when purchasing the land affected.

A successor to the original covenantor who has notice of the covenant, takes subject to that covenant. Since extended to incorporate a further three requirements for the burden of a covenant to pass in equity.

A covenant not to build without prior approval of plans, was extracted for the benefit of a dominant land just less than 4,000 acres. When the successor in title to the covenantor breached the covenant, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the breach. (Note a mandatory injunction was refused. To demolish the 13 houses already built would be ‘an unpardonable waste’. Instead, damages in lieu of an injunction were awarded.)

A covenant will be deemed to touch and concern the whole of the dominant land, however large, unless it can be shown that that opinion cannot reasonably be held.