[2007] EWHC 1829 (Ch), 15 June 2007. Demonstrates the requirement for restrictive covenants to specify the party who is responsible for its enforcement. The applicant (C) applied for a declaration that it could redevelop its property without obtaining consent from the respondent (T). C sought approval from the previous holder of the title but not from T. C argued that although T was the owner of the property, it did not benefit directly from the covenants as the covenant itself did not contain reference to a successor in title. "Held": There was no aspect of the case which required deviation from the literal wording of the covenant. While the covenant referred to successors in title, it did not do so in relation to the requirement of approval of developments. There could have been a commercial purpose intended in that any subsequent purchaser could have required the covenant to include the new purchaser be modified upon transference. Application granted.