Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1927
A 1922 restrictive covenant was unenforceable as it did not clearly identify the land intended to be benefited by it.
A 1922 restrictive covenant was unenforceable as it did not clearly identify the land intended to be benefited by it.
Facts
The appellant (BR) held a long lease of part of an area of land known as “the Rec”, from which it operated a famous rugby club. The Rec was subject to a covenant contained in a conveyance dated 6 April 1922 (the Covenant) under which the original purchasers covenanted for themselves and their successors and assigns with the original vendor and his successors in title and assigns that:
“…no workshops warehouses factories or other buildings for the purpose of any trade or business which may be or grow to be a nuisance annoyance or disturbance or otherwise prejudicially affect the adjoining premises or the neighbourhood shall at any time hereafter be erected upon the said hereditaments and premises…”.
BR wanted to replace its existing stadium with a new, larger stadium incorporating various retail and commercial outlets, with associated car parking. It accepted that if the Covenant was still enforceable, its proposed new development might breach the Covenant. However, it argued that there was no-one who could show that they had the benefit of the Covenant. It brought a claim under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 for declarations that, in effect, the Rec was free from the Covenant.
Two of the defendants claimed to own land that benefited from the Covenant (a flat overlooking the Rec and a house of which the flat formed part).
Issue
Did the 1922 conveyance sufficiently identify the land to which the benefit of the Covenant was intended to be annexed (in the absence of express assignment or a building scheme, annexation is the way that the benefit of a covenant passes in equity)?
Decision
For the benefit of a covenant to be annexed to land, it must be taken for the protection of defined land (so that it passes with ownership of the land). In this case, the covenant was deemed to be for the benefit of the ‘neighbourhood’ and this was insufficient. While it is common for covenants preventing nuisance to refer to a ‘neighbourhood’, that term did not sufficiently identify the land to which the benefit of the covenant was intended to be annexed (it refers not to particular properties, but to a local area).
This meant that the benefit of the Covenant had not been annexed to land and that there was therefore no one who could now enforce the Covenant.
Points to note/consider
- Two of the three judges in this case thought that not only must a conveyance identify the land to be benefited by a covenant, but also that the benefited land had to be ‘easily ascertainable’ at the time it was entered into (the third judge thought it was sufficient for the conveyance to describe the land intended to be benefited in terms which enabled it to be identified from other evidence). Either way, when entering into new restrictive covenants, this case emphasises the need to clearly and accurately identify the land intended to benefit from those covenants.
- In older conveyances, it is common to see restrictive covenants taken to benefit “the Vendor’s adjoining or neighbouring land” (or words to that effect). Whilst that phrase is probably conceptually certain (unlike ‘neighbourhood’), it may still be hard for anyone seeking to enforce such a covenant now to prove that the land that they own originally formed part of such “adjoining or neighbouring land”.
Contact

David Harris
Professional Development Lawyer
david.harris@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 934 2019
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise Platform Housing on landmark deal, creating over 300 affordable and sustainable homes
Legal Update
Building Safety Act 2022: New building control regime from 1 October 2023
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Minster Property Group on major Suffolk affordable housing project
Podcast
The real estate podcast: How AI and tech is changing real estate
Legal Update
The importance of three magic words
Legal Update
How to negotiate better ‘green’ provisions in your leases
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
Building our future town centres: advising local authorities on landmark acquisitions
Opinion
The Metaverse's influence on real estate: Implications for commercial retail clients and law firms
Legal Update
Assured shorthold tenancies for schools… let them have it!
Legal Update
Higher-risk buildings – are you ready for 30 September 2023?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise façade engineering consultants Wintech Group on its acquisition of AVUS Consulting
Published Article
Amendments to Procurement Bill: Navigating sanctions and supplier bans and impact on the construction sector
Legal Update
Spring has sprung - update on the Charities Act coming into force
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise Cubo on investment to support expansion
Opinion
The long-awaited Renters Reform Bill is finally introduced into Parliament
Legal Update
Utilising prime retail sites to improve the health of our nation
Legal Update
Retirement housing: A solution to our care and housing crises?
Legal Update
Understanding the obligations and implications for open space land and development
Article
Interest from Asia boosts investor confidence in UK commercial real estate
Opinion
The UK market offers the best value for commercial real estate
Opinion
New provisions for higher-risk residential buildings now in force
Legal Update
Regeneration: what role can universities play?
Opinion
Biodiversity Net Gain - Government publishes its metric consultation response & Natural England publishes their update biodiversity metric 4.0
Press Release
UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson joins UKREiiF 2023
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain — Government publishes consultation response
Opinion
‘Awaab’s Law’- a significant amendment to the Social Housing Regulation Bill
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s real estate specialists advise Chesterfield Borough Council on prestigious new development - One Waterside Place
Opinion
Will fixed recoverable costs in housing conditions claims see the light of day?
Legal Update
J A Ball Limited (in Administration) v St Philips Homes (Courthaulds) Ltd
Opinion
“A Modern Nuisance”
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise High Peak Borough Council on future high street funded acquisition as part of Buxton regeneration vision
Opinion
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
Guide
2023: Horizon scanning in construction
Legal Update
The importance of understanding the transitional provisions under the Electronic Communications Code
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Legal Update
Hillside – the end of drop in applications?
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
Press Release
Former Mace Group Legal Director joins Browne Jacobson as Non-Executive Director of its Construction & Real Estate sector
Browne Jacobson has appointed Amy Chapman, the former Group Legal Director of global built environment experts Mace Group, as its first Non-Executive Director (NED) of its Construction & Real Estate sector strategy board.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Bromley Council on the first social housing initiative of its kind to tackle homelessness
Opinion
Rent arrears post-Covid: What are the landlord’s options?
Since the beginning of the pandemic, landlords and tenants have experienced significant limitations in the way rent arrears could be pursued. We first saw the moratorium on the recovery of Covid related arrears, and more recently we’ve experienced the implementation of the Covid arrears arbitration scheme.