Emile Elias v Pine Groves [1993] 1 WLR 305

KEY POINTS

In order to create a valid building scheme, the purchasers of all the land within the area of the scheme must also know what that area is.

FACTS

• Maraval Lands Limited (referred to as "the company") owned approximately 90 acres of land exclusively used for the golf course. The company, predominantly held by the trustees of the golf club, decided to divide a portion of this land into four building plots in May 1938, labeled as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on a general plan. Additionally, a survey conducted on July 29, 1938, resulted in another plan that included an adjacent plot of land (later referred to as Lot 5).

• Each of these lots was separately sold to four different purchasers in 1938, with each buyer entering into restrictive covenants concerning their respective pieces of land. The appellants now seek to enforce these covenants, arguing that they are mutually enforceable among the lot owners due to the existence of a building scheme.

• However, both Mr. Justice Ibrahim at the trial and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago rejected the appellants' claim.

JUDGEMENT

• Appeal dismissed.

COMMENTARY

• This case highlights the importance of clear drafting in land sale contracts and the potential enforceability of restrictive covenants by parties not directly involved in the original contract.

• It also underscores the court's willingness to uphold such covenants when they serve a legitimate purpose, such as protecting the value and use of retained land by the seller.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• The parties disputed whether a building scheme had been established. There was no external evidence of the intention of the original parties. 

Held

• The building scheme was not established over a piece of land comprising five plots because (amongst other reasons) it was not shown that the purchasers of plots 1 and 3 (or their predecessors) knew that plot 5 was included.

• Their conveyances had a general plan showing plots 1 to 4, but not plot 5.