## Facts

- The dispute involved a leasehold residential property in Thamesmead.
- The original lease contained a covenant obliging the tenant to pay service charges for the maintenance of communal areas.
- The landlord subsequently transferred the reversion of the lease to Thamesmead Town Ltd, a housing association.
- The tenant, Mr. Allotey, argued he was not bound by the service charge covenant because he was not party to the original agreement and had not explicitly accepted this burden.

## Issues

1. Whether the benefit-and-burden rule applied to a case where the reversion of the lease had been transferred to a new landlord.
2. Whether a tenant, not party to the original covenant, could be compelled to pay service charges under the transferred lease.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the benefit-and-burden rule applied, so the tenant was required to pay the service charges.
- The court determined that explicit acceptance of the burden by the tenant was not necessary; it was sufficient that the tenant enjoyed the benefit of the services provided.
- The covenant for service charges was found to be directly connected to the use and enjoyment of the property.
- The tenant could not separate the advantages of the covenant from its associated obligations.

## Legal Principles

- The benefit-and-burden rule arises from equitable principles, requiring that those who take the benefit of a covenant must also bear the related burden.
- There must be a clear and direct relationship between the benefit received and the burden imposed.
- The principle does not require explicit acceptance of the burden if the party avails themselves of the corresponding benefit.
- Tenants cannot avoid obligations under a covenant simply because they were not party to the original agreement if the benefit and burden are closely linked.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that tenants who receive benefits under a covenant, such as maintenance of communal areas, are also liable for associated burdens like service charges, even if they were not parties to the original lease; this decision affirms the firm application of the benefit-and-burden rule in English property law.

Thamesmead Town Ltd v Allotey (1998) 30 HLR 1052