Restrictive covenants in Xanadu

Legal scholarship is naturally inclined towards explanations and justifications of contemporary law. In the case of restrictive covenants and building schemes this has led to a distorted perception of the historical record, as revealed in recorded case reports dating from the nineteenth century. It is argued that the restrictive covenant had its historical genesis not in a response to industrialisation and mass urbanisation, but in the developments of resort towns in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, as a response to the needs of land developers. Furthermore, it is argued that a better historical understanding of these origins illuminates contemporary problems concerned with the adaptability of law and the potential roles of law in development

Overreaching In Registered Land Law.

Beneficial interests under a trust were not intended to be overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The position was altered by Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland, which determined that an interest under a trust for sale would bind a purchaser if the beneficiary were in actual occupation. The decision raised the question whether such interests could be overreached once the beneficiary was in occupation of the trust property. City of London Building Society v Flegg held that the relevant beneficial interest had been overreached. Both decisions assume that overreaching in registered conveyancing takes effect as it does in unregistered land. Yet there is considerable evidence that the Land Registration Act contains its own overreaching machinery. The House of Lords applied the wrong overreaching provisions in Boland and Flegg and there is no legal basis on which to recognise that trust interests can override a subsequent disposition under section 70(1)(g)