Land obligations: the benefit and burden principle
By Chris Dolan and Cara Beveridge
As a general rule, positive obligations relating to land do not run with it — essentially they do not bind future owners of it.
A limited exception to this rule is that a person cannot enjoy a benefit without accepting a burden that goes with it and for this to apply the benefit and the burden must be relevant to each other.
The case that established this was Halsall v Brizell, decided in 1957. It concerned an obligation to contribute towards the cost of maintaining a roadway over which rights of way were granted. The court said that the obligation to pay for its upkeep was unenforceable, but that the successor in title to the original owner was not entitled to exercise the right of way if it did not also undertake the obligation to pay for the upkeep of the road. The exercise of the right was conditional on compliance with the positive obligation…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Shoosmiths briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
Why register to The Lawyer
More relevant to you
News from Shoosmiths
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Shoosmiths
This first of two articles will deal with rights of way belonging to others.
Obligations on businesses to ensure supply chains are slavery-free, including investigating suppliers and intermediaries.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Compliance and corporate governance codes for large financial institutions will undoubtedly include provisions to regulate high pay in the future
There’s more to the ABS model than attracting the man in the street and procuring external investment. Partners at the big corporate firms, take note…