Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Bellevue Station Pty Ltd; Bellevue Station Pty Ltd v Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

In the case of Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Bellevue Station Pty Ltd; Bellevue Station Pty Ltd v Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd, the parties, Bellevue Station Pty Ltd (BPL) and Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (CPC), own adjoining cattle properties in North Queensland. BPL seeks to enforce a give and take agreement against CPC, which was entered into with BPL’s predecessor in title. CPC, however, refuses to enter into a new agreement with BPL. The primary legal issues before the court were whether BPL was entitled to the benefit of the covenants in the give and take agreement and whether BPL had been assigned the benefits of the covenants through a deed of assignment. The court was required to interpret the terms of the give and take agreement and the deed of assignment, and determine whether the covenants ran with the land at general law, in equity, or through the deeming provisions of s 53 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The court also had to consider whether the deed of assignment was valid and effective without CPC’s consent.

The court concluded that clause 2 of the give and take agreement was a covenant relating to land, as it gave each party the right to use the land. The court found that the covenant did not simply compensate the other party for any loss associated with their use of the land, but rather, it allowed them to better enjoy the land, increase its value or improve the nature, quality, or mode of use of the land. The court held that the covenants ran with the land and that BPL was entitled to the benefit of the covenants. However, the court also found that the deed of assignment was invalid and ineffective at law, as it did not have CPC’s consent. As a result, BPL was not assigned the benefits of the covenants, and could not enforce the give and take agreement against CPC. The court declared that the deed of assignment was of no effect at law, dismissed BPL’s application, and ordered BPL to pay CPC’s costs of the application on the standard basis.