Renals v Cowlishaw (1879) 11 Ch D 866
Property law – Restrictive covenant
Facts
The predecessors of the defendants purchased part of a residential estate, and the adjacent lands from a land owner. The parties had agreed covenants that restricted the defendant’s rights to build on the land that had been purchased as well as other restrictions as to the use of the land. Later, the same land owner sold the remainder of the estate to the plaintiff, with no mention of the restrictive covenants that were previously agreed in the defendant’s transaction. The initial decision of the court found that the plaintiffs could not rely on the covenants in the agreement on the basis that there was no contract or representation that the purchasers would have a benefit from them. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.
Issue
The court was required to establish whether the covenant in the conveyance between the parties, could be relied upon to restrict the use of the land that had been purchased by the plaintiffs. There had been no mention of the covenant throughout the transfer of the land and therefore, the court was required to decide whether it would be reasonable to impose this on the plaintiff.
Decision/Outcome
The court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff could not rely on the covenant to restrict the defendants from building on the property as the covenant had not passed in law with the land from their predecessors. It is also worth noting that each of the judges emphatically supported the decision of Vice-Chancellor Hall who was the judge at the initial trial.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts and outcome of Renals v Cowlishaw (1879) 11 Ch D 866, a foundational nineteenth-century case on the passing of the benefit of restrictive covenants in equity. The legal principles established by this case — particularly that the benefit of a restrictive covenant does not automatically pass to a successor in title unless it was intended to benefit the land conveyed and was annexed to or assigned with that land — remain part of English land law and continue to be cited in academic and practitioner texts on restrictive covenants.
The broader legal framework governing restrictive covenants has developed substantially since 1879. Key subsequent authorities include Tulk v Moxhay (1848), Rogers v Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch 388, and Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594, the last of which significantly affected the law on annexation. Students should be aware that the Law Commission has repeatedly recommended reform of the law of restrictive covenants, most recently in its 2011 report Making Land Work: Easements, Covenants and Profits à Prendre (Law Com No 327), though those recommendations have not been enacted as of the date of this note. The article should therefore be read as a case summary of a historically significant authority rather than a comprehensive statement of the current law on restrictive covenants.
