## Facts

- The case concerned the enforceability of restrictive covenants tied to the development of a residential estate.
- The covenants restricted the use of individual plots within the estate.
- The conveyance documents delineated a defined geographical area for the scheme.
- The covenants imposed mutual obligations on all plot owners within the estate.
- The intention of the parties to create reciprocal rights and duties was inferred from the conveyance documents.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant must relate to a clearly defined geographical area to be enforceable.
2. Whether mutual or reciprocal obligations among the parties are required for enforceability of such covenants.
3. Whether the intention of parties, as evidenced by conveyance documents, determines enforceability.
4. What impact these requirements have on subsequent purchasers of plots within the defined area.

## Decision

- The court held that a restrictive covenant must pertain to a specific, clearly defined geographical area to be valid and enforceable.
- Enforceability depends on the existence of reciprocal obligations among the parties within the defined area.
- The court found that the covenants in question were enforceable because the estate was delineated in the original conveyance and the mutuality of obligations was evident.
- The intention to create a scheme of development and to impose reciprocal obligations was sufficiently demonstrated in the conveyance documents.
- As a result, the covenants bound subsequent purchasers of plots who had notice of the restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- The enforceability of restrictive covenants in property law requires a clearly defined area in the conveyance.
- Reciprocal obligations among plot owners are essential for the mutual benefit and burden of the covenants.
- The intention of the parties, as reflected precisely in the conveyance documents, is central to the enforceability of covenants.
- Precise drafting in conveyance documents is necessary to avoid ambiguity and support enforceability.
- Uniformity and consistency are key in schemes of development involving multiple landowners.

## Conclusion

The decision in Re Dolphin’s Conveyance [1970] Ch 654 established that restrictive covenants are only enforceable where there is a clearly defined area and reciprocal obligations among the parties, supported by evidence of intention in the conveyance documents. This case provides continuing guidance for the drafting and interpretation of property covenants.

Re Dolphin's Conveyance [1970] Ch 654