Roake v Chadha [1984]

Decision in Federated
Covenant stated that it shall not enure for benefit of
any owner or subsequent purchaser of any part of estate ‘unless benefit of this
covenant shall be expressly assigned.’
Held that annexation of benefit under s78 was not
This was notwithstanding that s78, unlike its counterpart
s79, does not contain words ‘unless a contrary intention is expressed’.
Even where covenant is deemed to be made with
successors in title as s78 requires, still have to construe covenant as whole
to see whether benefit of covenant is annexed.