Legal Arguments/Issues: The case involved the construction of a coach house by Dallas Worthington, which neighboring property owners, the Webbers, contested based on a restrictive covenant. The dispute revolved around the application and interpretation of a document (Indenture) and whether it imposed restrictions on Worthington's property (Lot 36) which he believed only applied to another property (Lots 5 and 6). The Webbers argued the covenant applied to all lots in the subdivision, including Lot 36, under a building scheme. The chambers judge initially required Worthington to bring a petition under Section 35 of the Property Law Act, focusing on the modification or cancellation of charges like restrictive covenants but did not resolve the interpretation of the covenant itself.

Held: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, stating that the chambers judge erred by requiring a petition under Section 35 for an issue that involved interpretation rather than modification or cancellation of the restrictive covenant. The matter was remitted to the trial court for proper adjudication of the underlying issues without deciding on the enforceability of the Indenture.

Costs/Award: The decision regarding costs was not finalized pending the determination of the Indenture's interpretation. The interim injunction against Worthington was set to expire 30 days post-judgment, with the Webbers allowed to reapply if deemed necessary. The case highlighted the need for clear interpretation and enforceability criteria under building schemes and restrictive covenants in property law disputes.