## Facts

- The case involved a restrictive covenant imposed in a 1925 conveyance prohibiting the construction of buildings on a specific plot of land without the consent of the vendor or their successors.
- Crest Nicholson, the claimant, sought to develop the land, while McAllister, the defendant, asserted that the covenant remained enforceable.
- The central dispute was whether the benefit of the covenant had been effectively annexed to the land.
- The conveyance stated that the covenant was made "for the benefit of the vendor’s adjoining land," but did not explicitly identify the specific land to which the benefit was annexed.

## Issues

1. Whether the wording in the 1925 conveyance was sufficient to effect the annexation of the benefit of the restrictive covenant to the land.
2. Whether vague or ambiguous language could support the enforceability of the restrictive covenant by successors in title.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the language in the conveyance was not sufficiently precise to effect annexation of the benefit of the covenant.
- The reference to "the vendor’s adjoining land" without explicit identification was inadequate to attach the benefit to specific land.
- The court confirmed that annexation requires explicit and unequivocal language demonstrating intent to benefit definite land.
- As a result, the covenant was deemed unenforceable due to insufficient clarity in the drafting.

## Legal Principles

- The benefit of a restrictive covenant can only run with the land when there is clear evidence of annexation.
- Annexation requires the covenant’s benefit to be explicitly and precisely attached to specific land, typically through clear wording in the original conveyance.
- Vague, general, or ambiguous language is insufficient to effect annexation and may render a covenant unenforceable against successors in title.
- The judgment reaffirmed the need for technical accuracy and explicit intent in drafting covenants to avoid disputes and uncertainty.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that strict and precise drafting is essential for the effective annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants, holding that the absence of explicit identification of benefitted land in the conveyance rendered the covenant unenforceable by successors.


Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004] 1 WLR 2409