Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949]

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 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.
Back to blog

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.