Rhone v Stephens
| Rhone v Stephens | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1994] UKHL 3, [1994] 2 AC 310 |
| Keywords | |
| Covenants | |
Rhone v Stephens [1994] UKHL 3 is an English land law case, concerning covenants.
Facts
Walford House had a house and, under the house’s roof there was a cottage. When the cottage was sold, the house owner covenanted to keep the roof in repair. The roof fell into disrepair and the cottage owner wished to sue the successor in title to come good on the covenant.
Judgment
Lord Templeman held that the covenant could not be enforced because the covenant was positive. His judgment said the following.[1]
| “ | Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by his predecessors without flatly contradicting the common law rule that a person cannot be made liable upon a contract unless he was a party to it. Enforcement of a positive covenant lies in contract; a positive covenant compels an owner to exercise his rights. Enforcement of a negative covenant lies in property; a negative covenant deprives the owner of a right over property...
To enforce a positive covenant would be to enforce a personal obligation against a person who has not covenanted. To enforce negative covenants is only to treat the land as subject to a restriction... [Counsel had...] referred to an article by Professor Sir William Wade[2] and other articles in which the present state of the law is subjected to severe criticism. In 1965 a report by a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor and under the chairmanship of Lord Wilberforce,[3] referred to difficulties caused by the decision in the Austerberry case[4] and recommended legislation… the present law on positive rights was described as being illogical, uncertain, incomplete and inflexible… Nothing has been done. ... experience with leasehold tenure where positive covenants are enforceable by virtue of privity of estate has demonstrated that social injustice can be caused by logic. Parliament was obliged to intervene to prevent tenants losing their homes and being saddled with the costs of restoring to their original glory buildings which had languished through wars and economic depression for exactly 99 years. |
” |
He also rejected that the benefit and burden principle could be taken to its logical conclusion to enforce the carrying out of independent positive obligations.
See also
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes
- ↑ [1994] 2 AC 310, 317-321
- ↑ Wade, William (1972). "Covenants: A Broad and Reasonable View". Cambridge Law Journal 31 (B): 157. doi:10.1017/S0008197300134002.
- ↑ Report of the Committee on Positive Covenants Affecting Land, (1965) Cmnd 2719
- ↑ Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation, 29 ChD 750 (1885).