The answer is that normally it will do. For instance, in Crest Nicholson (referred to above) premises were not to be used other than ‘those of or in connection with a private dwelling house’. The High Court decided that the word ‘a’ tended to carry with it the concept of singularity (rather than plurality) and thus the restriction to a ‘private dwelling house’ meant restriction to a single dwelling house only. However, that can be contrasted with another case in which the covenant prohibited ‘in any building or buildings any trade or business whatsoever and to permit or suffer any buildings to be used for any other purpose than as a private dwelling house either with or without garages and other necessary outbuildings’. It was held that the covenant as a whole, together with the other clauses in the conveyance, envisaged the presence of multiple buildings. In particular, the word ‘buildings’ was significant. Thus, as a matter of construction, although the covenant referred to ‘a’ dwelling house, the reality was that multiple houses were permitted.

The simple way to avoid these problems is to always use the word ‘one’ rather than ‘a’. In passing, it is worth mentioning two other restrictive covenant cases:

• a covenant required any plans to be approved by 'the company', but the company had long since been struck off the register (and it was not possible for it to be reinstated). It was held that that covenant was spent and of no effect, but that did not mean that the rest of the restrictive covenant was unenforceable (this was part of the Crest Nicholson decision, see above);
• a covenant prohibited 'the land hereby conveyed or any part thereof' being used 'for any trade business or manufacture' and it was agreed to 'use the same as a private residence only'. It was held that this restriction prevented the demolition of the existing house (and its replacement with a new one) and the construction of a roadway through the garden - because the requirement to use as a 'private residence' applied not only to the buildings but to the whole of the garden. Building a roadway to an adjoining development would be breach of that user restriction. Thus, there can be a difference between a 'private residence' and a 'private dwelling house'.

See, respectively, Martin v David Wilson [2004] EWCA Civ 1027 ; Jarvis Homes v Marshall [2004] EWCA Civ 839 . © Practical Lawyer