Re Union of London and Smith’s Bank Ltd [1933] Ch 611
Facts
Land in Sussex was sold in a series of conveyances involving a development company, mortgagees and later purchasers of smaller parcels. The documents contained restrictive covenants intended to protect other land retained by the vendors. As parcels changed hands, successors sought to enforce restrictions against later owners of burdened land. The litigation required the court to trace the claimed benefit through the conveyances. References to other land did not always identify its location and extent clearly. The relevant dealings also preceded the Law of Property Act 1925, making the date and wording of the covenants important to their treatment.
Legal Issue
Could successors enforce the restrictions where the land intended to benefit was insufficiently identified or the benefit had not been annexed or effectively assigned?
Held
The Court of Appeal treated identification of the benefited land and transmission of the covenant’s benefit as essential. A vague reference to a vendor’s other property did not establish the necessary connection with ascertainable land. Outside a building scheme, a purchaser could not assume that acquiring property automatically carried every covenant once obtained by a predecessor. The benefit had to be annexed to the relevant land or pass through an effective assignment. The court’s reasoning therefore rejected reliance on notice of the burden alone. It required a proper foundation for the claimant’s entitlement, examined through the wording and circumstances of the particular conveyances.
⭐ Legal Principle
A successor seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant must identify the land benefiting from it and establish how the benefit passed. Vague references to other land are insufficient, and, outside an applicable building scheme, annexation or effective assignment must be shown.
Significance
The case is an important historical illustration of the difference between having notice of a restriction and having the right to enforce it. Its pre-1926 covenants require care when comparing later statutory annexation under section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Modern questions still demand identification of the benefited land, as Crest Nicholson illustrates. The judgment does not mean that every later purchaser needs a fresh personal promise from the burdened owner.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was a vague reference to the vendor’s other land problematic?
The court needed to know which property was intended to receive the covenant’s benefit. Without reasonably certain identification, it could not simply treat the restriction as attached to every parcel a vendor might own. That issue concerned the claimant’s entitlement, not merely the defendant’s awareness of a restriction.
Does ownership of formerly retained land always carry the benefit?
Not automatically on the historical reasoning in this case. The claimant had to establish annexation or a valid assignment, unless an applicable building scheme supplied the basis for enforcement. The dates and documents therefore matter; the claim cannot be decided solely by tracing ownership of some nearby property.
Why does the date of the covenants matter in an exam?
These transactions preceded the 1925 property legislation. Later covenants may engage statutory annexation under section 78 and its subsequent interpretation. A sound answer distinguishes the historical rule from the later statutory route while retaining the requirement to connect the covenant’s benefit with identifiable land.