In this question, we need to discuss a detailed analysis of the law relating to

freehold covenants. We need to advise Cain whether he will be able to enforce

the covenants against Dalailah and get the remedy of specific performance &
injunction. The covenant requires a discussion regarding the passing of benefits &
burdens of restrictive covenants.

The covenant that a field farm must only be used for a construction of just a
single storey and not more than that is a covenant that is related to the land.
Therefore, this condition is satisfied that the covenant should be concerning the
land.

The second requirement that needs to be satisfied is that at the time of the
covenant the covenantee must have had a legal estate in the land as provided in
the case of Webb v Russell. Adam had a legal estate in the land as he was the
owner of the benefitted land which he then sold to Cain.

The third requirement is that the assignee must have a legal or equitable estate in
the land. Cain had the registered title because he bought the property from
Adam.

The benefit must be intended to run with the land, that's the fourth requirement.

Unless there is a contrary purpose (Crest Nicholson), there must have been an
express intention before 1926; nonetheless, from 1925, the intention is presumed
to run with the land under Section 578 of the LPA 1925. (Roake v Chada).

As a result, it follows that Adam, the assignee, will receive the benefit.

The benefit must be joined to the land as the final criterion.

The annexation criteria have been significantly loosened as a result of the

Federated Homes case.

Recent rulings in Federated Homes have established that benefits can flow even
when the covenant is not explicitly stated to apply to all of the covenantee's land
as long as the part of the land that is benefiting is assigned.

Cain purchased the house, which was the benefited property.

As a result, it can be said that Cain has received the advantages because all the
conditions have been met. The common law doctrine on the burden of convents
is that neither the positive nor the negative obligations of a covenant pass to the
assignee (Rhones v Stephens). Initially, the assignee was not subject to obligations
even from equity. Tulk v. Moxhay, The following prerequisites must be met for
burdens to pass in equity.

The first requirement is that there must be an intention that the burden should
pass to the assignee. After 1925, the intention is implied, unless there is a
contrary intention (S79 LRS 1925).

The second requirement is that it must be shown that the covenant is negative as
in the case of Haywood v Brunswick. The covenant was restrictive & thus, this
condition is also satisfied.

The third requirement is that the covenant must touch and concern the land as in
the case of Rogers v Hosegood. The covenant was related to the land.

It also needs to be proved that the covenant must have been made for the
covenantee’s land (Lee v Allen). This covenant was made for Cain’s land. This
condition is also satisfied.

The last requirement is that the registration formalities must be fulfilled,

otherwise, the burdens will not pass to the assignee. In the case of registered
land, a notice needs to be entered in the covenanter's title Register to protect it
as a commercial equitable interest.

If a notice was entered in the covenanter's Title Register then the burdens will
pass. If, however, the notice was not entered before Dalailah purchased the
burdened Land, then they will not be bound by the restrictive covenant.

Therefore, based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the negative
covenant will bind Dalailah as she has the burdened land and Cain can stop
Delilah from building the second storey of the café.