Conveyance — Restrictive covenant — Whether reference to use as “a private dwellinghouse” restricting building to one house per plot — Appeal allowed
Three plots of land were sold by conveyances of which each contained an identical restrictive covenant requiring the purchaser and his successors in title “not to use or permit or suffer any buildings erected thereon or on any part thereof to be used for any other purpose than as a private dwellinghouse”. The respondent bought one of the houses that were subsequently built on each of the plots, and the respondent acquired one of these. The appellant purchased land that incorporated parts of the other two plots, with a view to constructing 12 houses.
The respondent brought proceedings in which he contended that the proposed development would be breach the restrictive covenant. On a preliminary issue, the respondent argued, and the judge found, that the phrase “a private dwellinghouse” in the covenant had the effect of restricting construction to a single house per plot. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The use of the expression “a” did not carry any necessary implication of singularity: it was an article, not a number. The restrictive covenant was a user clause, requiring that there should be no use of the buildings on the land other than as “a private dwellinghouse”. That phrase readily referred to the presence and use as such of several dwelling-houses. Moreover, the words “or on any part thereof” indicated the possibility that buildings would be erected on separate parts of the land. It was therefore permissible to have a dwelling-house on each separate part of the land. The covenant meant that each building, on each part of the land, was not to be used other than for the permitted purpose of a private dwelling-house: Dobbs v Linford [1953] 1 QB 48 distinguished.
Jonathan Brock QC (instructed by Davis Arnold & Cooper) appeared for the appellant; Richard Jones QC and Marc Wilkinson (instructed by Martin Edwards Solicitors, of Shifnal) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
