Legal Research
Cases
Fitt v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd

Fitt v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2000] VSC 258 20 June 2000

Restrictive Covenant

Building Scheme

Adverse Possession

Easements & Covenants

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted

No.4531 of 2000

BRIAN JOHN FITT and WALTER CHARLES THOMAS DOWELL	Plaintiffs
v
LUXURY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 006 713 935)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17, 18, 19 & 20 April 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Fitt & Anor v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 258

---

Restrictive covenant – principles to apply – enforcing burden and benefit by and against subsequent owners – Building Scheme – land identified.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr G. Uren QC with Mr M. Townsend	Maddock, Lonie & Chisholm
For the Defendant	Mr P.N. Wikrama with Mr L.M. Watts	Strauss & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTIES.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

PROCEEDING................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

THE LAND....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT..................................................................................................................................................... 10

The passing of the benefit.............................................................................................................................................. 16

(i)     That the benefit of the covenant is annexed to some land.................................................................................. 16
(ii)     The covenant must identify the land to which it is annexed............................................................................. 18
(iii)    That the covenant is annexed to the whole of the land to be protected as well as each
and every part of it.................................................................................................................................................. 19
(iv)    The covenant must touch and concern the land of the covenantee.................................................................... 22
(v)    The covenantee and the present owner must each have a legal estate in the land to be benefited............... 23

Building scheme................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Assumption of the burden.............................................................................................................................................. 26
To enforce the burden the plaintiff has to prove -.......................................................................................... 26

(i)     The covenant must be negative in nature............................................................................................................. 26
(ii)     The covenant must be made for the protection of land retained by the covenantee...................................... 27
(iii)    The burden of the covenant must have been intended to run with the covenantor's land............................. 28
(iv)    That the defendant had notice of the restrictive covenant from information contained
in the Register of Land kept under the Transfer of Land Act 1958.................................................................. 28

Remedy.................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS................................................................................................................................................ 34

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS............................................................................................................................................. 34

FACTS........................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT................................................................................................................................................... 39

(i)     Benefit of covenant annexed to some land............................................................................................................ 39
(ii)     Benefit of covenant annexed to land identified?................................................................................................. 40
(iii)    The covenant annexed to the whole of the land to be protected as well as to each and every part of it?... 40
(iv)    The covenant must touch and concern the land of the covenantee.................................................................... 41
(v)    The plaintiffs and the covenantee have a legal estate in the land..................................................................... 41

BUILDING SCHEME................................................................................................................................................................... 42

ENFORCING BURDEN............................................................................................................................................................... 47

(i)Covenant negative?.............................................................................................................................................. 47
(ii)Covenant for the protection of land retained by covenantee?................................................................... 47
(iii)Burden of covenant running with the covenantor's land............................................................................ 47
(iv)Notice....................................................................................................................................................................... 48

DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................................ 56

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................................. 57

HIS HONOUR:

This is the return of a summons in a proceeding instituted by an originating motion seeking declarations and a permanent injunction to restrain a breach of a restrictive covenant, and in the alternative, damages.

Parties

The first plaintiff Brian John Fitt ("Mr Fitt") is an international mail consultant and together with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Fitt v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Fitt v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 258
Case: [2000] VSC 258
Decision Date: 20 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fitt v Luxury Developments Pty Ltd, the parties were contesting the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in relation to a building scheme. The dispute came before the court as the plaintiff sought to enforce the covenant against the defendant, who was a subsequent owner of the land in question. The court was required to determine the applicability of the restrictive covenant and whether it could be enforced against the defendant.

The central legal issues revolved around the principles governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants, particularly focusing on the burden and benefit of the covenant and how it could be enforced against subsequent owners. The court needed to consider whether the covenant had been properly registered and whether the land in question was sufficiently identified within the building scheme. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the covenant was intended to run with the land and bind subsequent owners.

The court found that the restrictive covenant was indeed properly registered and the land was clearly identified within the building scheme. The covenant was intended to run with the land and bind subsequent owners. The court concluded that the restrictive covenant was enforceable against the defendant. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, enforcing the burden of the covenant against the defendant and ensuring the covenant would be adhered to in relation to the development of the land. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of clear registration and identification of land within a building scheme to ensure the enforceability of restrictive covenants.

Orders