J Sainsbury plc v Enfield LBC [1989] 1 W.L.R. 590
LAND LAW – BENEFIT OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – ASSESSING INTENTION
Facts
An individual had conveyed part of his land to the first claimant, subject to restrictive covenants stated to be binding on the latter’s successors in title. The second claimant agreed to buy the land from the first claimant, subject to a declaration that the land was no longer subject to any covenants in favour of the individual’s successors in title. The claimants sought this declaration from the court.
Issues
Restrictive covenants are a type of property right in land usually preventing the owner of the land from making particular uses of it, for the benefit of the person in whose favour the covenant was made. The burden and the benefit of the covenant may bind the original parties’ successors in title if certain conditions are met.
The issue in this case was whether benefit of the relevant covenants was annexed to the land such that the original owner’s successors in title were entitled to it, and what evidence might be taken into account to assess this.
Decision/Outcome
The High Court granted the declaration.
The Court held that to determine whether the benefit of the covenant ran with the land, it should be assessed whether there are any facts from which it might be inferred that the intention of the conveyance of the land was that the covenants should be available for the benefit of the retained land.
When determining this, the court may only consult evidence of intention which manifests in the document of conveyance containing the covenant, construed in the light of any surrounding circumstances which necessitate particular implications being made. Surrounding circumstances which do not lead to necessary implications may not be taken into account when assessing intention.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in J Sainsbury plc v Enfield LBC [1989] 1 WLR 590. The principle that annexation of the benefit of a restrictive covenant depends on the intention apparent from the conveyance itself, construed in light of surrounding circumstances only where those circumstances give rise to necessary implications, remains good law.
Readers should note, however, that the broader landscape of annexation has been significantly affected by Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594, which held that section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925 can effect statutory annexation automatically in many cases without express words. The Sainsbury case remained relevant because section 78 was held not to apply on those particular facts (the covenant was entered into before section 78 could assist the claimants’ successors in the relevant way). Students should therefore read this case alongside Federated Homes and subsequent commentary to understand the full current position on annexation. There have been no subsequent statutory changes or appellate decisions that undermine the specific ratio of this case.
