## Facts

- The dispute concerned a property in London purchased by Mr. Ives, who benefited from a right of way over adjacent land owned by Mr. High.
- The right of way was originally granted by a previous owner of Mr. High's land, and Mr. Ives relied on it for access.
- Mr. High attempted to restrict Mr. Ives’s use of the right of way, arguing the burden of the covenant did not bind him as successor in title.
- Mr. Ives maintained that Mr. High was estopped from denying enforceability of the burden since he derived a benefit from the transaction granting the right of way.
- The dispute necessitated determining whether estoppel could bind Mr. High to the burden of the covenant despite lacking privity of contract.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who derives a benefit from a covenant can be bound by its burden in the absence of privity of contract.
2. Whether the doctrine of estoppel may prevent a party from denying the enforceability of a covenant’s burden when they have accepted a corresponding benefit.
3. Whether the principle of mutual benefit and burden applied, obliging Mr. High to bear the burden associated with the right of way.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that estoppel could bridge the benefit and burden of a covenant, binding Mr. High to the burden due to his acceptance of the related benefit.
- It was determined that equity prevents a party from denying a burden when retaining the corresponding benefit would be inequitable.
- The connection between benefit and burden was found to be sufficiently direct and clear in this case, justifying enforcement of the burden against Mr. High.
- The decision allowed the enforceability of the burden even where privity of contract was absent.

## Legal Principles

- Estoppel prevents a party from asserting rights inconsistent with their prior actions, statements, or conduct, particularly when it would be unfair to do so.
- In property law, acceptance of an equitable benefit may confer an obligation to bear the associated burden, especially in cases involving easements and covenants.
- The mutual benefit and burden principle ensures that a party cannot selectively accept rights while refusing corresponding obligations.
- Equity supplements strict legal rules to advance fairness, mitigate unjust enrichment, and extend obligations beyond the original parties to a contract.

## Conclusion

Ives v High clarified that a party who accepts the benefit of a covenant or easement may be estopped from denying its burden, even in the absence of privity, reinforcing the central role of equitable principles in ensuring fairness and consistency in property law.


Ives v High [1967] 2 QB 379