Debate about whether a building scheme existed or annexation existed. The court said no to annexation seemingly on the basis that there was no express words doing so (Gardner. This weakens the idea of necessary implication being an adequate substitute i.e. no annexation by reference to circumstances alone). There was no building scheme because the parties to whom the properties had been sold under the building scheme had brought in a deed to apply their own set of restrictions, replacing those set out under the building scheme. In this case Wynn-Parry J held that the words used properly construed created a replacement of the building scheme rather than mere modification e.g. the deed purported to “release and discharge” the previous covenants. Assignment failed as there was no complete chain of assignment. He then considered if there was a way of making covenants binding on successors other than by building scheme, annexation or assignment. There was no authority for a fourth method.