To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Re Dolphin's Conveyance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re Dolphin’s Conveyance
A street of houses in Selly Oak, Birmingham. The question was whether more intensive development was covenant-barred, unless later released. The question was decided in the affirmative.
CourtHigh Court
Full case nameBirmingham Corpn v Boden
Citation(s)[1970] Ch 654
[1970] 3 WLR 31
[1970] 2 All ER 664, Ch D
Case history
Prior action(s)none
Subsequent action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMr Justice Stamp
Keywords
Covenants

Re Dolphin's Conveyance [1970] Ch 654 is an English land law case, concerning covenants. The general legal requirement for a building scheme to exist to enable constrain certain types of development on adjoining land was on the facts satisfied as the multiple vendors were in fact common beneficiaries selling on identical legal terms and no drawing of a cogent estate plan was here necessary.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    418
    969
    3 350
  • Decanter centrifuge
  • Henry VI, Part I - Act 1 (audiobook)
  • Moby Dick (09 of 14) (audiobook)

Transcription

Facts

Robert Dolphin, owner of Selly Hill Estate, Birmingham, died and the plots were sold in nine conveyances. The first four by his sisters, the last five by his nephew, all on the same legal terms, with covenants about the house type to be built on each plot. These sellers covenanted they would impose similar covenants on the other sale of plots. The current owner, a subsequent owner of one of the houses, wished to redevelop in breach of covenants and asked the Court whether they were enforceable.

Judgment

Stamp J held that even though there was no common vendor and the estate had not been laid out prior to sale, there was a building scheme created.

Cases cited

Applied

  • Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Ltd [1965] Ch 816; [1965] 2 WLR 1115; [1965] 1 All ER 906, Ch D[1]

Distinguished

  • White v Bijou Mansions Ltd [1938] Ch 351, CA
  • Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 665, CA[1]

See also

Notes

This page was last edited on 4 October 2023, at 16:57
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.