Halsall v Brizell

Halsall v Brizell
Court	High Court
Citation(s)	[1957] Ch 169
Keywords
Positive covenant

Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169 is an English land law case, concerning the enforceability of a covenant that required positive obligations.

Facts

Homebuyers on a Liverpool estate got the right to use estate roads, drains, the promenade, and sea walls subject to the obligation to contribute to repair and upkeep. Brizell, a successor of an original purchaser, claimed he should not need to pay. (This was a positive covenant.)

Judgment

Upjohn J held that he could not claim the benefit of the facilities without having to pay as well. He could not exercise the rights without paying his costs of ensuring that they could be exercised.

Significance

The case was approved by Rhone v Stephens, but also distinguished. Lord Templeman said the following.^[1]

“

In Halsall v Brizell the defendant could, at least in theory, choose between enjoying the right and paying his proportion of the cost or alternatively giving up the right and saving his money. In the present case the owners of Walford House could not in theory or in practice be deprived of the benefit of the mutual rights of support if they failed to repair the roof.

”

Cases on covenants

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd [1949] 2 KB 500

Law of Property Act 1925 s 56(1)

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 s 1(1)

Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774

Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310

Law of Property Act 1925 s 79(1)

Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford UFC [2001] Ch 459

LPA 1925 s 78(1)

Re Dolphin’s Conveyance [1970] Ch 654

Easements Reform (2008)

Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798

Law of Property Act 1925 s 84(1)

English land law

Notes

↑ [1994] UKHL 3, [1994] 2 AC 310

References

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/18/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.