Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club

Facts

Morrells sought to enforce an injunction against building a pub within half a mile of it, against Oxford UFC, which was proposing a stadium with leisure facilities. This came from a covenant in 1962, and it was argued that it bound successors under Law of Property Act 1925, section 79 unless the contrary was shown.

Judgment

Robert Walker LJ held the purpose of s 79 was to remove the difficulty of expressing an intention to bind successors by allowing that intention to be presumed unless a contrary intention was expressed. However, other covenants within the conveyance made it clear that successors should be bound, and the absence of such words in the clause in question showed a contrary intention. The covenant was thus merely personal in nature and could not be enforced against successors in title. He said that Law of Property Act 1925, section 79 ‘extends the number of persons whose acts or omissions are within the reach of the covenant in the sense of making equitable remedies available, provided that the other conditions for equity’s intervention are satisfied.’ So it does not bind the successors, but says that the initial covenantor is responsible for the successors. He went on, saying, 'A’s duty is a duty not to make a particular use of A’s land; and A’s duty enhances B’s Freehold or Lease (i.e. benefits B’s land); and A’s duty, when created, is not intended to impose only a personal duty on A.'