Hall v Sloane

In *Hall v Sloane*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute concerning the enforceability of a restrictive covenant affecting land. The appellant, Hall, sought to enforce the covenant against the respondent, Sloane, who was the registered proprietor of the land burdened by the covenant. The covenant, registered on the title, purported to restrict the use of the land to residential purposes only and prohibited any trade or business from being conducted thereon.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the restrictive covenant was valid and enforceable against the respondent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the covenant ran with the land at common law or in equity, and if it did, whether there were any grounds upon which its enforcement should be refused. This involved an examination of the principles governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants, including the requirement that they must be negative in substance and intended to benefit the dominant tenement.

The Court of Appeal found that the covenant was indeed negative in substance, as it imposed a restriction on what the owner of the burdened land could do, rather than requiring them to perform a positive act. Applying established equitable principles, the Court held that the covenant was intended to benefit the adjoining land owned by the covenantee and had been registered on the title, thus providing notice to subsequent purchasers. Consequently, the Court concluded that the covenant was valid and enforceable against the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the restrictive covenant was ordered to be enforced.