Re Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England’s Conveyance [1936] Ch. 430
Property law – Restrictive covenant running with land
Facts
The Ecclesiastical Commission, who was charged with the responsibility to distribute the incomes for the Church of England, sold land to a purchaser with the inclusion of a number of restrictive covenants which restricted the purchaser, and all owners and tenants in the future, from causing nuisance by building on the land that was being sold. The purchasers of the land, on the estate, requested a declaration that the covenants no longer applied after the conveyance of the property, and, if they did happen to exist, they requested clarification as to who would be able to enforce them. The Ecclesiastical Commission had also sold parts of the land to other individuals with similar covenants and these individuals were included in the respondents.
Issue
The court had already established in this case that there was no building scheme affecting the property. On this basis, the court was required to understand whether the covenants, that were included in the conveyance of the property, still applied to the purchasers of the land. This required particular consideration of the term ‘adjoining’ in relation to the estate as well as a wider consideration of the construction of the covenant.
Decision/Outcome
The court found that on the construction of the covenant, the ‘adjacent’ land included plots that were not connected the property or land in question and on this basis, the respondents that purchased the property from the Ecclesiastical Commission had the ability to enforce the restrictive covenants against the purchaser of the property. This was despite the fact that they were not parties to the original conveyance which took place in 1887.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article discusses the 1936 case of Re Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England’s Conveyance [1936] Ch 430, which concerns the running of restrictive covenants with land and the construction of terms such as ‘adjoining’ or ‘adjacent’ in conveyances. The case remains good law and is still cited in discussions of restrictive covenant enforcement, particularly where no building scheme exists but covenants are nonetheless enforceable by third-party purchasers from a common vendor. The general legal principles described — including the requirement for a building scheme, the benefit of restrictive covenants passing at law and in equity, and the construction of covenant terms — remain governed by well-established case law and by the Law of Property Act 1925 (sections 78 and 79 in particular), which have not been materially amended in ways that affect this case’s authority. Readers should note that the Law Commission has made long-standing recommendations for reform of the law of restrictive covenants (most recently considered in its 2011 report, ‘Making Land Work: Easements, Covenants and Profits à Prendre’, Law Com No 327), proposing replacement of the current regime with a new statutory scheme of ‘land obligations’, but as of the date of this note no such legislation has been enacted and the existing common law and statutory framework remains in force. The article is therefore broadly accurate as a case summary.
