Weekly review: 12th – 15th November 2012

Acquiesence

There can be no successful defence of acquiescence when the covenantee (far from acquiescing) has objected to the breach. The mere fact that the covenantee has not brought proceedings against others similarly in breach provides no defence on its own (Hoi Luen Industrial Centre (IO) v Ohashi).

Building Management Ordinance: Deed of Mutual Covenant: incorporated owners: pre-incorporation debts

A pre-incorporation liability of all of the owners  in relation to the common parts of the building is enforceable against the owners corporation (Hang Yick Properties Management Ltd v Tuen Mun Kar Wah Building).

Contracts: formalities: estoppel

Where a party to an oral agreement concerning land failed to plead CPO s.3(1) and the agreement was then enforced against him, he cannot later plead section 3(1) in relation to any other dispute concerning the same agreement (Humphries v Humphries).

Land covenants: positive covenants: rule in Halsall v Brizell

He who wants to take the benefit of a deed must accept its burden (Halsall v Brizell).

Restrictive covenants: equity; Tulk v Moxhay

Where a successor in title has notice of an equity affecting his title (here a restrictive covenant created by a predecessor the burden of which was intended to run with the land)  then he is subject to it (Tulk v Moxhay).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: