Mohammadzadeh v Joseph & Ors

Mohammadzadeh v Joseph & Ors

In a post-1925 conveyance, if a restrictive covenant touches and concerns the covenantee's retained land and that land is ascertainable from the conveyance and admissible extrinsic evidence, section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 operates to annex the benefit of the covenant to the land, making it enforceable by successors in title without the need for express words of intention in the conveyance.

Parties
Claimant: Bijan Mohammadzadeh; Defendant: Howard Joseph; Defendant: Sandra Florence Maxine Joseph; Defendant: Melanie Ross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annexation of Benefit, Law of Property Act 1925 Section 78, Enforceability of Covenants
Land Law Property Law Restrictive Covenants Annexation of Benefit Law of Property Act 1925 Section 78 Enforceability of Covenants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bijan Mohammadzadeh

Claimant

Howard Joseph

Defendant

Sandra Florence Maxine Joseph

Defendant

Melanie Ross

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in a 1963 conveyance are enforceable by successors in title to the original covenantee's retained land under section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
  2. 2 Whether the benefit of the covenants was annexed to the retained land or was personal to the original covenantee.

Ratio Decidendi

In a post-1925 conveyance, if a restrictive covenant touches and concerns the covenantee's retained land and that land is ascertainable from the conveyance and admissible extrinsic evidence, section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 operates to annex the benefit of the covenant to the land, making it enforceable by successors in title without the need for express words of intention in the conveyance.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed