Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board  2 KB 500 is a significant English land law and contract law appeal decision. The case, decided by Denning LJ, establishes key principles related to positive covenants, privity of contract, and the implication of covenants in contracts aimed at improving land.
The River Douglas Catchment Board entered into an agreement with landowners to carry out work to prevent flooding on certain lands. In 1940, Mrs S, one of the landowners, sold her land (Low Meadows) to Smith, who incorporated Snipes Hall Farm Ltd as his agricultural tenant. In 1946, flooding occurred, causing damage to Smith and Snipes Hall Farm land. They sought damages from the Board for breach of contract (tort was not considered).
The main legal question revolved around whether the lack of privity of contract—Smith and Snipes Hall Farm not being privy to the original agreement—barred them from seeking recovery for the damages caused by the Board's breach of contract.
The Court of Appeal held that the Board was in breach of contract, and this breach caused damage to the farm. Denning LJ's decision emphasised that the agreement implied an intention that the obligation would attach to the land. This meant that the owner, as well as successors in title, could enforce the covenant. Denning LJ's notable decision is cited below:
"It is my opinion that the board broke their contract. It was an implied term that they should do the work with reasonable care and skill, so as to make the banks reasonably fit for the purpose of preventing flooding... The covenant of the catchment board in this case clearly relates to the land of the covenantees. It was a covenant to do work on the land for the benefit of the land... The result is that the plaintiffs come within the principle whereby a person interested can sue on a contract expressly made for his benefit."
Denning LJ challenged the notion of privity of contract, arguing that the principle is not as fundamental as perceived. He invoked the beneficiary principle, asserting that a person who makes a promise intended to be binding must keep that promise, and the court will hold them to it for the benefit of the interested party.
The decision emphasised that covenants made with the owner of the land for its benefit can be enforced against the covenantor not only by the original party but also by successors in title. Denning LJ highlighted the statutory provisions, including Section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 56 of the Law of Property Act 1925, as reinforcing the principle that a person may enforce an agreement respecting property made for their benefit, even if not a party to it.
This case provides valuable insights into the enforceability of covenants related to land, challenging traditional notions of privity of contract and emphasising the protection of the legitimate property, rights, and interests of third parties. The decision contributes to the evolving landscape of contract law, particularly in the context of land-related agreements.
Check out our exam-focused Property Law notes now.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.