Ives v High [1967] 2 QB 379

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal