Mohammadzadeh v Joseph & Ors [2006] EWHC 1040 (Ch) (15 February 2006)

Mohammadzadeh v Joseph & Ors [2006] EWHC 1040 (Ch) (15 February 2006)

In a post-1925 conveyance, restrictive covenants that touch and concern the retained land and where the land intended to be benefited is ascertainable from the conveyance and admissible extrinsic evidence are enforceable by successors in title under section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, without the need for express intention in the conveyance.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1040 (Ch)
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
Claim for Declaration Under Law of Property Act 1925 S.84(2) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annexation of Benefit, Enforceability by Successors in Title
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Annexation of Benefit Enforceability by Successors in Title

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bijan Mohammadzadeh

Claimant

Howard Joseph

Defendant

Sandra Florence Maxine Joseph

Defendant

Melanie Ross

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Declaration Under Law of Property Act 1925 S.84(2) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in the 1963 Conveyance are enforceable by successors in title to the retained land or only by the original covenantees

Ratio Decidendi

In a post-1925 conveyance, restrictive covenants that touch and concern the retained land and where the land intended to be benefited is ascertainable from the conveyance and admissible extrinsic evidence are enforceable by successors in title under section 78(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, without the need for express intention in the conveyance.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed