000			01467cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66116
008			021203n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u120656
245			_aCrest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002] 48 EG 140 (CS)
490			_aCommercial Leases _v17(1) January 2003, 705-706(2)
490			_aHigh Court (Chancery Division) _v[2002] EWHC 2443 (Ch)
520			_aChD 18 November 2002. Due to a restrictive covenant the claimant (C) was prevented from building more than one house on each plot. The defendant (M) also contended that there should be an absolute restriction on building as the party named in the covenant no longer existed to give the required approval for any development on the plots. C claimed that the building restriction was discharged on the breakdown of the machinery for seeking approval, having also claimed that on a true construction of the user covenant, it was free to build more than one house on each plot. Held. The first declaration was allowed but the second declaration was refused, supported by the observation of "Dobbs v Linford" 1953.
590			_aABS
650			_aRESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
650			_aHOUSE BUILDING
650			_aRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
650			_aUSER COVENANTS
650			_aCREST NICHOLSON RESIDENTIAL (SOUTH) LTD V MCALLISTER
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c71702 _d71702