Rogers v Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch 388

Facts

• The case involved a restrictive covenant prohibiting the construction of buildings on a specific plot of land, intended to protect the amenity value of adjacent properties.
• The central question was whether the benefit of the restrictive covenant had been expressly annexed to the land, allowing subsequent owners to enforce it.
• The relevant deed contained language indicating whether the covenant benefitted the land itself or only the original covenantee.
• The dispute focused on the enforceability of the covenant by successors in title.

Issues

1. Whether the benefit of a restrictive covenant had been validly and expressly annexed to the land, ensuring it passed to successors in title.
2. Whether the language in the deed was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to demonstrate intent to benefit the land rather than just the original party.
3. Whether any ambiguity in the covenant's drafting could render it unenforceable.

Decision

• The court held that the benefit of the restrictive covenant had been expressly annexed to the land.
• It found the deed’s language was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to indicate an intention to benefit the land and its future owners.
• The court determined that ambiguity in such covenants might render them unenforceable, reinforcing the necessity for precision in drafting.

Legal Principles

• For a restrictive covenant to be enforceable by successors in title, its benefit must be expressly annexed to the land via clear and explicit language in the deed.
• An intention to benefit the land (not merely the original covenantee) must be evident in the covenant’s wording.
• Ambiguity in the terms of a covenant can defeat its enforceability.
• The principles established in this case are regularly applied in modern property law to assess the enforceability of restrictive covenants against successors in title.

Conclusion

Rogers v Hosegood clarified that for a restrictive covenant to bind successors, its benefit must be clearly and expressly annexed to the land by unambiguous deed language, a principle that continues to guide the drafting and enforceability of covenants in English property law.