From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1957] Ch D 169 (CA). The defendants purchased a plot of land that was subject to a freehold covenant to pay a contribution towards the upkeep of roads and sea wall in a building scheme. The claimants wished to enforce the covenant against the defendants, who were unwilling to pay the full amount that the claimants asserted was due. The claim succeeded, despite the covenants being positive. The defendants could not rely on the rule in Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885), that the burden of restrictive covenants does not run with the land at common law. It was held that a successor who wished to take the benefit of a covenant would have to take the related burden of paying for it.

Halsall is quite narrow in scope. It only applies where there are mutual obligations expressed in covenants. There have been attempts to widen it (see Rhone v Stephens (1994)), but so far the courts have preferred that any changes in the law of positive covenants be expressed in legislation.