References:  Ch 169,  1 All ER 371,  2 WLR 123
Coram: Upjohn J
The Court was asked whether the covenant to pay an appropriate proportion of the costs of keeping in good repair the roadways, sea wall, drains and sewers in respect of a common development was enforceable.
Held: The defendants could not be under any liability to pay their obligations if they did not desire to take the benefit of the deed. On the other hand if they wanted the benefit they must pay. the defendants could not have a right, apart from the deed, to use the roads of the park which led to their particular house. Upjohn J. went on to find that the defendants could not rely on any way of necessity because he held that, when the house was originally sold to the predecessors in title of the then current occupants, same was conveyed subject to a covenant to bear a proper proportion of the expenses in respect of the maintenance of the roads as a condition for being entitled to make use of those roads and other services.
This case cites:
- Cited – Elliston v Reacher ChD ( 2 Ch 665, [1908-1910] All E Rep 612)
The court was asked whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: It had. The court set out the factors which must be shown to establish a building scheme on an estate; Both plaintiff and defendant’s titles must derive from the same . .
This case is cited by: