| Tulk v Moxhay | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Chancery |
| Decided | 22 December 1848 |
| Citations | [1848] EWHC Ch J34 (1848) 41 ER 1143 |
| Transcript | None published. Court-authorised law report issued. |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Prohibitory injunction granted by the Master of the Rolls (Under the cited case the Lord Chancellor refused a motion to dismiss the injunction) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Cottenham, Lord Chancellor of England and Wales (1836–1841 and 1846–1850) |
| Keywords | |
| Restrictive covenant | |
Tulk v Moxhay is a landmark English land law case which decided that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. a future owner will be subject to the restriction) in equity. It is the reason that Leicester Square exists today.
On the face of it disavowing that covenants can "run with the land" so as to avoid the strict common law's former definition of "running with the land", the case has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1950 as meaning that "covenants enforceable under the rule of Tulk v Moxhay ... are properly conceived as running with the land in equity";[1] the Canadian court's wording summarises how the case has been interpreted and applied in decisions across common law jurisdictions.