Halsall v Brizell


Halsall v Brizell Ch 169 is an English land law case, concerning the enforceability of a positive covenant, that is required positive obligations, in this case the obligation to pay money for upkeep and repair.

Facts

Homebuyers on a Liverpool estate owned their property enjoying 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, wished to continue to benefit from all of these but claimed he should not need to pay, as payment was a positive covenant.

Law

It was already old law that positive covenants routinely bind successors in leasehold land. Until this case, conflicting decisions pointed to a narrow category of application of positive covenants could bind successors owning freehold land. This decision clarified that positive covenants, such as the responsibility to maintain or repair infrastructure, attached to a right to enjoy and use that infrastructure, can routinely attach to freeholders who choose to use that infrastructure.

Judgment

Mr Justice Upjohn held that Brizell could not claim the benefit of the facilities without having to pay for them. 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.

Applied in

Not applied in