Gunter v Doogan

In the case of Gunter v Doogan, the applicant sought an order for the removal of a restrictive covenant over their property. The application was made against two respondents, one of whom had already been discharged from the proceedings. The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to have the restrictive covenant removed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had standing to seek the removal of the restrictive covenant. The court needed to consider whether the applicant had a sufficient proprietary interest in the land to bring such an action. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the covenant was still necessary for the protection of the neighbouring property and whether the applicant had been prejudiced by the covenant.

The court held that the applicant did not have the necessary proprietary interest to seek the removal of the restrictive covenant. It was determined that the applicant’s interest in the property was not sufficient to grant standing for this type of action. The court found that the covenant remained necessary for the protection of the neighbouring property and that the applicant had not demonstrated any significant prejudice caused by the covenant. Consequently, the court dismissed the application. The court did, however, grant leave for the application to be filed against the remaining respondent, allowing the proceedings to continue against that party.