## Facts

- The case involved a dispute between the owners of a semi-detached house divided into two parts: the main house and an adjoining cottage.
- The original conveyance included a covenant requiring the owner of the cottage to maintain the roof of the main house, which extended over both properties.
- Mrs. Stephens, the plaintiff, sought to enforce this covenant against Mr. Rhone, who had acquired the cottage as a successor in title.
- The key question was whether the positive covenant to maintain the roof could be enforced against Mr. Rhone.
- The plaintiff argued for the enforceability of the covenant, while the defendant contended that the burden of a positive covenant does not run with freehold land at common law.

## Issues

1. Whether the burden of a positive covenant can run with freehold land at common law and thus be enforced against successors in title.
2. Whether the benefit and burden doctrine allows a positive covenant to be enforced in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held unanimously that the burden of a positive covenant does not run with the land at common law.
- Lord Templeman, delivering the leading judgment, reaffirmed that only negative (restrictive) covenants can bind successors in title.
- The court rejected reliance on the benefit and burden doctrine as a means to enforce the positive covenant in this context.
- The judgment clarified that legislative intervention would be required to alter this longstanding common law principle.

## Legal Principles

- At common law, only the burden of a negative covenant may run with land and bind successors in title.
- The burden of a positive covenant, which requires active performance or expenditure, does not automatically pass to successors in title.
- The doctrine of benefit and burden cannot generally be used to make successors in title liable for positive covenants.
- Effective enforcement of positive obligations in property transactions typically requires leasehold schemes or statutory mechanisms.

## Conclusion

Rhone v Stephens confirms that, at common law, the burden of positive covenants does not run with freehold land and reinforces the ongoing need for statutory reform to provide enforceable mechanisms for positive obligations in property law.

Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 All ER 65