Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Crest Nicholson v McAllister

[2004] 1 WLR 2409

Case summary last updated at 08/01/2020 19:14 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Crest Nicholson v McAllister

The claimant failed in her efforts to enforce the covenant because the land intended to benefit could not be identified. The court held that for Section 78 to assist, it must still be possible from the document imposing the covenant (if necessary with the aid of external evidence) to identify the land which was intended to benefit from the covenant. The true effect of s.78 was to render it unnecessary to state in the conveyance that the covenant was to be enforceable by persons deriving title under the covenantee or his successors in title and by the owner or occupier of the land intended to be benefited, or that the covenant was to run with that land. 
 
Chadwick LJ: It is obviously desirable that a purchaser of land burdened with a restrictive covenant should be able not only to ascertain, by inspection of the entries on the relevant register, that the land is so burdened, but also to ascertain the land for which the benefit of the covenant was taken-so that he can identify who can enforce the covenant. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Land Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Land Law Notes

Land Law Notes >>