header-logo header-logo

A legal history of Leicester Square

03 January 2019 / Steven Gasztowicz KC
Issue: 7822 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

​Steven Gasztowicz QC marks the 170th birthday of Tulk v Moxhay

  • Tulk v Moxhay (1848) and the birth of restrictive covenants.
  • An examination, 170 years later, of some of the human and historical aspects of the case – and the way they have affected the law – and Leicester Square in London.

Can a case have a birthday? Well, no, not really, of course. However, 22 December 2018 marked the 170th anniversary of the decision of the Lord Chancellor in Tulk v Moxhay (1848) SC 2 PH 774, [1843-60] All ER Rep 9.

This is the celebrated case which is seen as representing the birth of restrictive covenants in English land law, so the reference to birthdays is not entirely inappropriate.

Restrictive covenants are, of course, contractual promises not to use land in a particular way, which are enforceable not just against present, but also against future, owners and occupiers of the land. You do not have to be a land lawyer to appreciate the human and historical

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll