Halsall v Brizell
| Halsall v Brizell | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court |
| Citation(s) | [1957] Ch 169 |
| Keywords | |
| Positive covenant | |
Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169 is an English land law case, concerning the enforceability of a covenant that required positive obligations.
Facts
Homebuyers on a Liverpool estate got the right to use estate roads, drains, the promenade, and sea walls subject to the obligation to contribute to repair and upkeep. Brizell, a successor of an original purchaser, claimed he should not need to pay. (This was a positive covenant.)
Judgment
Upjohn J held that he could not claim the benefit of the facilities without having to pay as well. He could not exercise the rights without paying his costs of ensuring that they could be exercised.
Significance
The case was approved by Rhone v Stephens, but also distinguished. Lord Templeman said the following.[1]
| “ | In Halsall v Brizell the defendant could, at least in theory, choose between enjoying the right and paying his proportion of the cost or alternatively giving up the right and saving his money. In the present case the owners of Walford House could not in theory or in practice be deprived of the benefit of the mutual rights of support if they failed to repair the roof. | ” |
See also
Notes
- ↑ [1994] UKHL 3, [1994] 2 AC 310
References
External links
This article is issued from
Wikipedia.
The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike.
Additional terms may apply for the media files.