The defendant appealed against a finding that a building scheme was effective over his land. There was no evidence that any purchaser had seen the architect’s plan prepared for the common vendor or was told that the common vendor was proposing to exact similar (or indeed any) covenants from the purchasers of other plots.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no sufficient evidence from which it could be inferred that the common vendor intended to create a scheme of local law.
 31 P and CR 167
England and Wales
Cited – Elliston v Reacher ChD 1908
The court was asked whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: It had. The court set out the factors which must be shown to establish a building scheme on an estate; Both plaintiff and defendant’s titles must derive from the same . .
Approved – Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Limited ChD 1965
The original owner of the estate alleged to be subject to a building scheme had not laid out the estate in lots before selling off plots on it. The court considered whether a building scheme had been established.
Held: The failure did not mean . .
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 – 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.
Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.263763