FLK2 · Land Law

Freehold covenants

SQE1 revision notes — the key rules, leading cases and common traps for this topic, in plain English and current to 2026.

LL.06 Freehold Covenants

A covenant is a promise in a deed. The hard question is enforcement after the original parties have sold on. Always identify the burdened land (servient) and benefited land (dominant), then run separate tests for benefit and burden.

Between the original parties

Always enforceable as a matter of contract, even after they part with the land.

Passing the BURDEN (the key issue)

At law: the burden of a covenant does not run with freehold land (Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885); confirmed Rhone v Stephens [1994] HL). A successor to the burdened land is not bound at law.

In equity — only the burden of restrictive (negative) covenants runs, under Tulk v Moxhay (1848). All four conditions must be met:

The covenant is negative in substance (the "hand in pocket" test — does compliance cost money? If yes, it's positive).
It was made to benefit dominant land which the covenantee held at the time (touches and concerns it).
It was intended to run with the servient land (presumed by LPA 1925 s.79 unless excluded).
Notice / registration: registered land — protect by a notice on the charges register (LRA 2002); unregistered land — a Class D(ii) land charge (LCA 1972).

Positive covenants never bind successors directly. Workarounds: chain of indemnity covenants; mutual benefit and burden (Halsall v Brizell [1957], confined by Rhone v Stephens — must be a genuine link and a real choice to take the benefit); estate rentcharge; or a leasehold/commonhold structure.

Passing the BENEFIT

At law: annexation (touch and concern + intent, presumed by LPA 1925 s.78), assignment, or the covenantee's successor relies on s.78. In equity: annexation (statutory under s.78 — Federated Homes v Mill Lodge [1980]; express; or to part), assignment, or a building scheme (Elliston v Reacher [1908]; Re Dolphin's Conveyance [1970]) giving mutual enforceability between plot-owners.

Common traps

Burden runs only in equity, only if negative. A positive covenant (e.g. repair, pay, maintain a fence) never binds a successor directly.
Don't confuse s.78 (benefit) with s.79 (burden) — s.79 only signals intent, it doesn't make the burden run at law.
The covenant must benefit identifiable dominant land — no benefited land, nothing to enforce.
Notice/registration is essential for the burden in equity; an unprotected restrictive covenant is void against a purchaser.
Discharge/modification: apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under LPA 1925 s.84.

Try a real SQE1 question

Straight from the bank. Answer it, then see the worked reasoning and the tutor — no signup to try.

Three friends — Anya, Ben and Carl — buy a house together as legal and equitable joint tenants. Relations between them sour. Anya writes a letter to Ben and Carl stating: 'I am hereby severing my joint tenancy in the house with immediate effect and I wish to hold my share separately from now on.' She signs and dates it and posts it by ordinary first-class post to the house, where all three live. The letter is delivered and Ben reads it. Carl, who is away, never sees it because Anya later retrieves the letter and destroys it before Carl returns. Which of the following best describes the effect of Anya's letter?

Before you book a £1,934 exam

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them — and 59% failed in July 2025. See where you stand across all of them, free.

✓An AI tutor on every question that already knows the answer — the part nothing else has
✓5 full mock papers at real exam pace, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
✓The whole 2,000+ bank, verified and source-cited to the law, all 137 areas
✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

Start my free diagnostic — one tap →

Free. No card. 25 questions, about 15 minutes. Full SQE1 courses run £1,500–£4,000 — this starts at £0.