Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Re Ballard’s Conveyance

[1937] Ch 473

Case summary last updated at 08/01/2020 18:46 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Re Ballard’s Conveyance

Where a restrictive covenant purports to have been annexed to land so as to run with it, and does not in fact "concern or touch" the whole of the land, the annexation is ineffective, and the covenant does not run with the land and cannot be enforced by any owner the land other than the covenantee. Even if there is some part of the land which the covenant does "concern or touch," the Court will not sever it and treat it as annexed to that part. 
Clauson J: He asks “Is the covenant one which, in the circumstances of the case, comes within the category of a covenant the benefit of which is capable of running with the land for the benefit of which it was taken? A necessary qualification in order that the covenant may come within that category is that it concerns or touches the land with which it is to run”. Here the covenant fails to concern or touch far the largest part of the land. 

Re Ballard’s Conveyance crops up in following areas of law