Covenant in UK Law

There was nothing in the conveyance itself which in terms made the enjoyment of these facilities conditional upon the payment of the maintenance charge and the charge was payable under the terms of the conveyance for their maintenance and not for the exercise of the right to enjoy and make use of them.

The reason is because it is so difficult to draw the line between information which is confidential and information which is not: and it is very difficult to prove a breach when the information is of such a character that a servant can carry it away in his head. The difficulties are such that the only practicable solution is to take a covenant from the servant by which he is not to go to work for a rival in trade. Such a covenant may well be hold to be reasonable if limited to a short period.

The learned Judge accepted Hr Sheridan's first contention, that a mere challenge by the landlord to the tenant'e title, a denial by him of her title, would be sufficient to constitute a breach of the covenant. We are not concerned in this case with a denial of the tenant's initial title by virtue of the letting, and I am not considering whether or not that could be a breach of the covenant. He is entitled also to threaten proceedings in the Courts for possession and damages.

The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant's exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word "enjoy" used in this connection is a translation of the Latin word "fruor" and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to deriving pleasure from it.

In otherwords, if the condition precedent of section 78 is satisfied - that is to say, there exists a covenant which touches and concerns the land of the covenantee - that covenant runs with the land for the benefit of his successors in title, persons deriving title under him or them and other owners and occupiers.

It appears that the judge's reference to a legal assignment was brought about by the citation to him in argument of the decision of this court in Shaw v. Applegate [1977] 1 WLR 970, where, at p 979H, Goff LJ, relying on the judgment of Farwell J. in Osborne v. Bradley [1903] 2 Ch 446, 451, expressed the view that it is easier to establish a case of acquiesence where the right is equitable only.

The main intention of section 62 was to provide a form of statutory shorthand rendering it unnecessary to include such words expressly in every conveyance. It is a matter of debate whether, in the context of the section, the words "rights…appertaining to the land" include rights arising under covenant as opposed to strict property rights. However, I will assume, without deciding, that rights under covenant are within the words of the section.