{"id":5975,"date":"2018-10-12T12:38:31","date_gmt":"2018-10-12T12:38:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-17T13:09:08","modified_gmt":"2019-06-17T13:09:08","slug":"rhone-v-stephens-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php","title":{"rendered":"Rhone v Stephens 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310; [1994] 2 All ER 65; [1994] 2 WLR 429;<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1994] 2 EGLR 181; [1994] NLJR 460; [1994] 37 EG 151<\/strong><\/p>\n

EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS, SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, FREEHOLDS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/h3>\n

The owners of a house and the adjoining cottage under the same roof sold the cottage. Under the conveyance, the vendor covenanted for himself and his successors in title as the owners of the house, to maintain the part of the house which was above the cottage in good condition, to the reasonable satisfaction to the purchasers and their successors in title. Both the house and the cottage were subsequently sold. The plaintiffs were the current owners of the cottage and the defendant was representing the estate which owned the house. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, claiming that the roof above the cottage was leaking and that the defendant was in breach of the covenant, contained in the conveyance, to repair it. The defendant was held to be bound by the covenant at first instance. On appeal, this decision was reversed. The plaintiff then appealed to the House of Lords, contending that the rule that positive covenants did not run with freehold land had been reversed by s. 79 Law of Property Act 1925<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n

Does the burden of positive covenants run with freehold land?<\/p>\n

Decision\/Outcome<\/h3>\n

The appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n

(1) Following Austerberry v Corporation of <\/em>Oldham<\/em>(1885) 29 Ch.D. 750<\/strong>, a positive covenant was not enforceable in common law because the successor in title was not party to the contract containing the covenant.<\/p>\n

(2) The burden of positive covenants did not run with the freehold and was not enforceable in equity, although breach of a negative covenant which restricted the user of land or the exercise of other rights in connection with land could be prevented or punished in equity.<\/p>\n

(3) The rule that positive covenants did not run with the freehold was not affected by s. 79 Law of Property Act 1925<\/strong> which merely made it unnecessary to refer to successors in title in covenants in conveyance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nRhone v Stephens 1994 | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rhone v Stephens 1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Rhone v Stephens 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\"},\"wordCount\":337,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\",\"name\":\"Rhone v Stephens 1994 | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rhone v Stephens 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rhone v Stephens 1994 | LawTeacher.net","description":"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rhone v Stephens 1994","og_description":"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Rhone v Stephens 1994","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php"},"wordCount":337,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php","name":"Rhone v Stephens 1994 | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY, COVENANT TO REPAIR, POSITIVE COVENANT, ENFORCEABILITY, BURDEN AND BENEFIT OF COVENANTS","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/rhone-v-stephens-1994.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rhone v Stephens 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}