Gingernuts, I agree with that. The point is, if you don't need to prove nuisance (and I can't remember if you do), someone who has the benefit of such a covenant could enforce it simply because they didn't like their neighbour (i.e. they could go to the effort and expense just out of spite). The precedent set by the Piplings case may well mean it is much less risky to get the covenant enforced.