[2004] EWHC 2710 (Ch), 9 December 2004. Claimant university (U) took proceedings under the Law of Property Act 1925 s84(2) to clear its title to the Barking Campus. After ruling on the covenants, the court went on to determine costs under the 1925 Act s203(5). (D)'s contention that the covenants bound U as owners of the Barking Campus and were enforceable by D as owners of the Becontree Estate had been upheld earlier. The judge held further that U was entitled to sell the Campus free from covenants, which would however trigger D's entitlement to exercise a right of pre-emption. U questioned whether Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) had superseded the rule of practice on costs established before "Re Jeffkins Indentures" ([1965] 1 WLR 375). "Held": the rationale for the rule of practice was a claimant applying for a declaration of freedom from covenants was seeking for its own benefit the protection of a court order against the existence of any adverse rights and had to join as defendants all persons who might have adverse rights. This rationale was equally applicable after the CPR and was consistent with CPR. D had succeeded on all issues relating to the validity and enforceability of the covenants but had failed in their construction of the pre-emption clause. Employing the rule of practice as a guideline, U should pay D's costs on an indemnity basis. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.