Tulk v. Moxhay (1848)
Restrictive covenant runs with the land in equity when purchasers take with notice.
Quick Summary
In Tulk v. Moxhay, the court said a buyer who knows about a promised restriction on land cannot ignore it. Even if the buyer’s deed does not repeat the promise, equity will stop them from acting against it. The case protects negative (restrictive) covenants so that the land stays used as agreed—in this case, keeping Leicester Square as an open garden.
Issues
- Does a restrictive covenant “run with the land” in equity and bind later owners?
- Is notice (actual or constructive) enough to make a later purchaser bound?
Rules
- A covenant is a contract, but equity can enforce a negative covenant against a later buyer with notice.
- Actual or constructive notice of the restriction is sufficient for an injunction.
Facts (Timeline)
View image
Arguments
Appellant (Tulk)
- The covenant was intended to bind the land, not just the first buyer.
- Moxhay knew (or ought to have known) about the restriction.
- Allowing building would be unconscionable and harm neighbors relying on the promise.
Respondent (Moxhay)
- He was not a party to the original contract.
- The covenant was absent from his deed.
- Therefore, he should not be bound by the earlier promise.
Judgment
The court granted an injunction against Moxhay. Even though he was not party to the original covenant, he bought with notice. Equity will not allow him to break the promise and build on the garden.
Ratio Decidendi
A negative covenant relating to land use can bind a subsequent purchaser who acquires with actual or constructive notice. The enforcement is in equity, focusing on conscience and fairness, not privity of contract.
Why It Matters
- Foundation for modern restrictive covenants and neighborhood schemes.
- Shows how notice and equity protect expectations about land use.
- Separates negative covenants (usually enforceable) from positive ones (usually not).
Key Takeaways
- Notice controls: If you know, you’re bound (in equity).
- Negative only: Restrictions on use, not duties to spend.
- Remedy: Injunction keeps land use as promised.
- Policy: Prevents unfair advantage by later buyers.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: T-U-L-K — Timeline promise, Use restricted, Later buyer knew, Keep it open.
- Spot the covenant: Is it negative and about land use?
- Check for notice: actual or constructive?
- Seek remedy: injunction to preserve the promise.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does a restrictive covenant bind a later purchaser who has notice, even if not in their deed?
Rule
Negative land-use covenants are enforceable in equity against purchasers with notice.
Application
Moxhay bought with notice of the open-space promise for Leicester Square; equity stops him from building.
Conclusion
Injunction granted. The covenant is enforced against Moxhay.
Glossary
- Restrictive Covenant
- A promise limiting how land may be used.
- Notice
- Knowledge of a fact; can be actual or constructive (you ought to have known).
- Injunction
- Court order preventing a party from doing something.
- Equity
- Body of law focused on fairness and conscience.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now