Reid v Bickerstaff [1909] 2 Ch 305
Property law – Restrictive covenants – Building scheme
Facts
The defendant’s predecessor purchased a plot of land as part of a larger property and vested this into trustees for sale. The sale included a covenant which restricted building on the land that was purchased. The trustees sold their part of the land to the predecessors of the plaintiffs with comparable restrictive covenants. The trustees continued to sell plots of land until the estate became a residential area. The plaintiffs subsequently bought a claim to restrict the defendant from building on the land as it was in breach of the covenants contained in the initial deed. The trial judge inferred a building scheme on the land and granted the injunction. This was appealed.
Issue
The court was required to consider whether the plaintiff could rely on the restrictive covenants that were intended to pass with the land from the initial conveyance. If they could, the plaintiff could be granted an injunction to prevent the development of the property. In doing this, the court would have to decide whether the development could be considered a building scheme and if not, whether the covenant had been previously annexed to the land.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial judge. It was held that the plaintiffs had not established the requirements of a building scheme which included reciprocal rights in a defined area. The court also found that the benefits of the covenants had not been expressly assigned the predecessors of the plaintiffs and therefore they had not been annexed to the land in the current circumstances.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Reid v Bickerstaff [1909] 2 Ch 305 is still a leading authority on the requirements for a building scheme (sometimes called a scheme of development), particularly the requirement for a defined area and reciprocal rights between plot owners. The requirements for a valid building scheme were subsequently consolidated and clarified in Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374 (decided around the same period) and later in Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Ltd [1965] Ch 816 and Re Dolphin’s Conveyance [1970] Ch 654, which relaxed some of the stricter requirements. The Law of Property Act 1925, s.78 (as interpreted in Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594) significantly changed the law on annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants, meaning that the position on annexation described in this case must now be read in light of that statutory development. Students should note that automatic annexation under s.78 would now likely apply in many circumstances where express annexation or assignment was previously required, potentially affecting the outcome on the annexation point had the case arisen today. The core principles on building scheme requirements, however, remain good law.
