## Facts

- London County Council (the Council) entered into a covenant with a landowner restricting the construction of buildings on a specific plot of land.
- The original landowner later sold the land to the defendant, Allen.
- The Council sought to enforce the covenant, arguing that it benefited their adjoining land by preserving its value and preventing overcrowding.
- At the time the covenant was made, the Council did not own any land that could benefit from the restrictive covenant.
- The dispute centered on whether the covenant was enforceable against Allen as a subsequent purchaser.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable if the covenantee does not possess a proprietary interest in land that benefits from the covenant.
2. Whether the requirement that covenants "touch and concern" the land was satisfied in this case.
3. Whether the covenant constituted a personal obligation or attached to the land so as to bind successors in title.

## Decision

- The court held that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable against Allen because the Council did not own any land capable of benefiting from the covenant at the time it was created.
- It was found that the covenant was a personal obligation, not one attached to or benefiting land, and therefore did not bind successors in title.
- The requirement for enforceability—a proprietary interest in land benefiting from the covenant—was not met.
- The case confirmed that covenants which do not benefit land, but only impose obligations for personal purposes, are not enforceable against subsequent purchasers.

## Legal Principles

- For a restrictive covenant to be enforceable against successors in title, the covenantee must own identifiable land that benefits from the covenant at the time it is made.
- The covenant must "touch and concern" the covenantee’s land, directly affecting its use or value, to bind successors in title.
- A mere personal obligation, unsupported by a proprietary interest, cannot run with the land.
- The presence of intention to bind successors is insufficient without a proprietary interest that connects the covenant to land.

## Conclusion

The decision in London County Council v Allen established that restrictive covenants are enforceable only when they benefit the covenantee’s land through a proprietary interest at the time of creation, thereby reinforcing the doctrine that only such covenants can bind successors in title under English property law.

London County Council v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642