Chapter 9 Quiz:
Choose one answer unless otherwise indicated.
1 Which of the following statements is correct?
a)The benefit of a restrictive freehold covenant cannot run at law.
b)The benefit of a restrictive freehold covenant can only run only in equity.
c)Neither the benefit nor the burden of a restrictive freehold covenant can run at law.
d)The burden of a restrictive freehold covenant can run only at law.
e)The burden of a restrictive freehold covenant can run only in equity.
[Answer guide]
The main rules are summarized in Table 9.1 of Land Law.
Answer: e
2 Why is the question of whether the original parties intended the benefit of the covenant to run with the land unlikely to be significant?
a)It is not referred to in Tulk vMoxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774.
b)It is not one of the factors explicitly identified as relevant in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc [1989] AC 632.
c)Usually, it will be implied by virtue of section 78 of the LPA 1925 provided that the covenant was made after 1925.
d)Usually, it will be implied by section 56 of the LPA 1925.
[Answer guide]
SeeLand Law, Sections 9.4.2(b) (law) and 9.5.2(a) (equity). Section 56 is explained at Land Law, Section 9.7.
Answer: c
3 True or false: the question of whether the burden of a covenant will run in equity primarily turns on the question of whether the purchaser of the affected land has notice of the burden of the covenant?
a)True.
b)False.
[Answer guide]
Notice is the foundation of the decision in Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774, but the present rules are more complex (see Land Law, Section 9.5.1).
Answer: b
4 Which two of the following covenants are probably restrictive covenants?
a)A covenant to keep the roof of a shared building in wind tight and watertight condition.
b)A covenant to keep the building in repair.
c)A covenant to keep certain land free from any buildings.
d)A covenant not to allow the roof of a shared building to fall into bad repair.
e)A covenant that the building be used only as a private residence.
[Answer guide]
The test for a positive covenant is not how it is worded, but whether it requires the covenantor to take action or spend money: see Land Law, Section 9.5.1(a) and, also, Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Building Society (1881-2) LR 8 QBD 403.
Answer: c and e
5 In Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan[2004] 1 P & CR 13, the sixth Earl Cadogan had conveyed land to a local authority subject to a covenant on behalf of the local authority and its successors that the land would be used for no other purpose than the housing of the working classes ‘so long as such adjoining or neighbouring property or any part thereof forms part of the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea but not further or otherwise’. Why was this covenant declared to be unenforceable by the Court of Appeal?
a)The land comprising the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea in 1929 was incapable of benefiting from the covenant.
b)The land that benefited from the covenant was no longer owned by the family of the original covenantee.
c)The land benefiting from the covenant was no longer part of the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea.
d)The original covenantor was a local authority, and local authorities cannot pass the burden of such covenants to purchasers of land.
[Answer guide]
See Land Law, Section 9.5.1(b).
Answer: c
6 True or false: provided that the land intended to benefit from the covenant is identifiable with sufficient certainty, and provided that there is no express contrary intention, the benefit of the covenant is deemed to be annexed to the land by virtue of section 79 of the LPA 1925?
a)True.
b)False.
[Answer guide]
This statement would be true if it had referred to section 78 (see Land Law, Section 9.5.2(a)). For section 79 of the LPA 1925, see Land Law, Section 9.5.1(c)).
Answer: b
7 Apart from a building scheme, there are two ways in which the benefit of a restrictive covenant may pass to the successor in title of the covenantee. Of these two methods, ………… takes place when the covenant is created, and may arise expressly, by implication or by the action of statute.
a)annexation.
b)application.
c)assignment.
d)completion.
e)discharge.
[Answer guide]
See Land Law,Section 9.5.2(a-d).
Answer: a
8 Which two of the following elements are required if a person is to take the benefit of a covenant by virtue of section 56 of the LPA 1925 as an original covenantee?
a)She must be named in the deed creating the covenant.
b)She must be identifiable from the wording of the covenant.
c)She must have existed at the date of the covenant.
d)The covenant must be restrictive.
[Answer guide]
SeeLand Law, Section 9.7.
Answer: b and c
9 True or false: for the purposes of section 84 of the LPA 1925, it is not sufficient that the person with the benefit of the covenant does not object to it being discharged; she must also be cognisant of the possible consequences of the discharge of the covenant?
a)True.
b)False.
[Answer guide]
See Land Law, Section 9.9.2 and Re University of Westminster [1998] 3 All ER 1014.
Answer: a
10 In Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, Upjohn J held that the purchaser of a house on a residential estate was bound by a freehold covenant requiring him to contribute to the cost of maintaining a private road. In Rhonev Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310, Lord Templeman held that the burden of a positive covenant did not pass at law. Nevertheless, he also said that he had ‘no difficulty in wholeheartedly agreeing with the decision’ in Halsall. How can this be?
a)In Halsall the defendant’s contribution to the costs of the road were reciprocal to the rights he enjoyed over the road.
b)The question in Halsall concerned the ability of a covenant to run in equity not at law.
c)Halsall concerned a building scheme.
d)The defendant in Halsallwas a tenant, rather than the freeholder of the land.
e)In Halsall, the defendant had covenanted with his predecessor in title that the defendant would observe the positive covenant.
[Answer guide]
See Lord Templeman’s explanation of Halsall in Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310 at 322.
Answer: a
Ch09_QuizPage 1 of 3