The parties disputed whether a building scheme had been established. There was no external evidence of the intention of the original parties.
Held: The building scheme was not established over a piece of land comprising five plots because (amongst other reasons) it was not shown that the purchasers of plots 1 and 3 (or their predecessors) knew that plot 5 was included. Their conveyances had a general plan showing plots 1 to 4, but not plot 5.
Judges:
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Woolf
Citations:
[1993] 1 WLR 305, [1993] EG 31, (1993) 66 P and CR 1, [1993] UKPC 3
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Reid v Bickerstaffe CA 27-May-1909
When considering whether a building scheme had been successfully imposed on plots sold off, and in addition to the conditions laid down in Elliston v Reacher, the overall extent of the estate must be clearly identified. In this case it was not so . .
Cited by:
Cited – Small v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
Cited – Turner and Another v Pryce and others ChD 9-Jan-2008
The claimants asserted that they had the benefit of restrictive covenants under a building scheme to prevent the defendants erecting more houses in their neighbouring garden. The defendants pointed to alleged breaches of the same scheme by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242392