What are the circumstances in which the benefit of a freehold covenant will run with the land? Did the decision in the case of Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd (1980) fundamentally alter the law in this area?

As an introduction, you may wish to briefly explain what a freehold covenant is and the fact that it has a duel aspect of a burden and a benefit. Identify that the transmission of each is governed by separate rules. Identify the circumstances where it will be necessary to see if the benefit of a freehold covenant has passed.

Key focus will then be upon the circumstances in which the benefit of a covenant will run with the land. Remember to make the distinction between the rules in equity and the rules at common law. Perhaps it would be advisable to reflect upon the difference between passing the benefit of a covenant on to a successor of the dominant land personally (through assignment for example (s 136 LPA 1925 at common law; Miles v Easter (1933) in equity)) and attaching the benefit of a covenant to the dominant land itself so that any subsequent successor of that land may benefit from it (annexation in equity; P&A Swift Investments Ltd v Combined English Stores Group plc (1989) at common law. The wording of the question appears to focus upon the latter method of transmission?

Explain the requirements for passing the benefit of a covenant at common law. Consider the methods of annexing a benefit of a covenant to the land in equity. Particular focus should rest upon statutory annexation following the Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd (1980) interpretation of s 78 LPA 1925. You should critically analyse the difference, if any, this decision made to the passing of the benefit of a covenant. Has it, for example, made other methods of passing the benefit redundant? Is it as far reaching in its application as was once first thought? Key authorities here include Brightman LJ in Federated Homes Ltd; Roake v Chadha (1984); Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister (2004); 89 Holland Park (Management Ltd v Hicks (2013).

Draw final conclusions.