The court considered whether a building scheme had been established so as to allow the mutual enforcability of restrictive covenants. A particular question arose as to the extent of the scheme involved.
Held: A building scheme was established. The court could take evidence from the town clerk of Birmingham Corporation showing the limits of the Selly Hill Estate mentioned in the conveyances.
Stamp J said: ‘It is trite law that if you have conveyances of the several parts of an estate all containing the same or similar restrictive covenants with the vendor, that is not enough to impute an intention on the part of that vendor that the restrictions should be for the common benefit of the vendor and of the several purchasers inter se: for it is at least as likely that he imposed them for the benefit of himself and of the unsold part of the estate alone.’
Stamp J
[1970] 2 All ER 664, [1970] Ch 654, [1970] 3 WLR 31
England and Wales
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 – Perkins and Another, Re 87 Peplins Way UTLC 25-Oct-2012
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – covenant restricting development to one dwelling per plot – proposal to erect additional house within grounds of existing property – objectors’ entitlement to benefit – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.188830