P & A Swift Inv. v Combined English, [1989] AC 632

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

In 2023, Redwood Estates (the original covenantor) entered into a 99-year lease arrangement with a commercial tenant for a newly constructed retail complex. The lease included a covenant requiring the tenant to cover a portion of maintenance costs for common areas used by all occupants. Subsequently, Redwood Estates sold its freehold interest to Maple Holdings, and the original tenant assigned the lease to a new tenant. The new tenant argues that this obligation does not bind them because it was allegedly personal to the original tenant. Maple Holdings contends that the covenant relates directly to the property's upkeep and should therefore run with the land.


Which factor is the single most important in determining whether the covenant will be enforceable against the new tenant under English law?

Introduction

The case of P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores [1989] AC 632 is a landmark decision in English property law, particularly concerning the criteria for covenants to run with the land. A covenant, in legal terms, is a promise made in a deed or agreement that imposes obligations or grants rights related to land. For a covenant to "run with the land," it must bind or benefit subsequent owners of the property, not just the original parties to the agreement. The House of Lords in this case clarified the essential requirements for such covenants to be enforceable against successors in title.

The judgment addresses the distinction between positive and negative covenants, the necessity of intention for the covenant to run, and the relevance of the land's benefited and burdened status. It also examines the historical development of covenant law, tracing its roots to the common law and equitable principles. This case remains a critical reference for understanding the enforceability of covenants in property transactions, particularly in commercial and residential leasehold contexts.

The Legal Framework of Covenants

Covenants in property law are classified into two primary types: positive and negative. Positive covenants require the covenantor to perform a specific action, such as maintaining a fence or paying a service charge. Negative covenants, on the other hand, impose restrictions, such as prohibiting certain uses of the land. The enforceability of these covenants depends on whether they "run with the land," meaning they bind or benefit subsequent owners.

The common law traditionally allowed only negative covenants to run with the land, while positive covenants were generally personal obligations. This distinction stems from the principle that positive covenants impose an active burden, which could be onerous for successors in title. Equity, however, developed the doctrine of restrictive covenants, enabling certain negative obligations to bind successors if specific criteria were met.

Key Principles Established in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores

The House of Lords in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores reaffirmed and refined the criteria for covenants to run with the land. The case involved a dispute over whether a covenant in a lease could bind a subsequent tenant. The court held that for a covenant to run, it must satisfy the following conditions:

  1. Intention to Bind Successors: The original parties must have intended the covenant to bind successors in title. This intention is typically inferred from the wording of the deed or agreement.

  2. Touch and Concern the Land: The covenant must relate to the use or enjoyment of the land itself, rather than being a purely personal obligation. This requirement ensures that the covenant has a direct connection to the property.

  3. Privity of Estate: The covenant must be enforceable between parties who hold a legal relationship, such as landlord and tenant, or freeholder and leaseholder.

  4. Registration: In some cases, the covenant must be registered to be enforceable against third parties. This requirement varies depending on the jurisdiction and the type of covenant.

The court emphasized that these criteria apply equally to both positive and negative covenants, although the practical enforceability of positive covenants remains limited under common law.

Application to Leasehold Covenants

The case specifically addressed leasehold covenants, which are common in both residential and commercial property transactions. Leasehold covenants often include obligations related to rent, maintenance, and permitted use. The court clarified that such covenants can bind subsequent tenants if they meet the criteria outlined above.

For example, a covenant requiring a tenant to maintain a building's exterior would likely run with the land if it is expressed to bind successors and relates directly to the property's use. Conversely, a purely personal obligation, such as a promise to pay a specific individual, would not run with the land.

Implications for Property Transactions

The judgment in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores has significant implications for property transactions. It provides clarity on the enforceability of covenants, enabling parties to draft agreements with greater certainty. Property developers, landlords, and tenants can use this framework to ensure that their obligations and rights are preserved across transfers of ownership.

The case also highlights the importance of careful drafting in property agreements. Ambiguities in the wording of covenants can lead to disputes over their enforceability. Legal practitioners must ensure that covenants are clearly expressed to bind successors and relate directly to the land.

Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

The principles established in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores are broadly consistent with those in other common law jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia. However, there are notable differences in the treatment of positive covenants. In some jurisdictions, statutory reforms have expanded the enforceability of positive covenants, addressing the limitations of the common law.

For instance, in England and Wales, the Law Commission has proposed reforms to allow positive covenants to run with the land, subject to certain conditions. These proposals aim to modernize covenant law and align it with contemporary property practices.

Conclusion

The House of Lords' decision in P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores [1989] AC 632 remains a leading authority in English property law. It provides a clear and authoritative framework for determining whether covenants run with the land, balancing the interests of original parties and successors in title. The case emphasizes the importance of intention, relevance to the land, and legal relationships in the enforceability of covenants.

By clarifying the criteria for covenants to run, the judgment has provided greater clarity and predictability in property transactions. It also highlights the ongoing need for legal reforms to address the limitations of the common law, particularly in relation to positive covenants. As property practices continue to change, the principles established in this case will remain essential for understanding and applying covenant 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.

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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