Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: LEICESTER v WALTON [1995] NSWCA 258 Decision date: 22 November 1995
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Leicester v Walton [1995] NSWCA 258
- Case
- [1995] NSWCA 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Leicester v Walton* [1995] NSWCA 258, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Leicester, and the respondent, Walton. The case concerned the interpretation and enforceability of a deed of covenant entered into between the parties.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the deed of covenant, which purported to create a perpetual restriction on the use of certain land, was valid and enforceable against the respondent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if such a perpetual covenant ran with the land and bound subsequent owners, or if it was void for remoteness of the reversion.
The Court of Appeal, applying established principles of property law, held that the covenant was void for remoteness. It reasoned that a covenant that sought to impose a perpetual restriction on the use of land, without any corresponding benefit to other land owned by the covenantee, was an attempt to create a perpetual rent charge or an interest in land that was contrary to public policy and the established rules against perpetuities. The Court distinguished this situation from covenants that confer a benefit on adjoining land, which are generally enforceable.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the deed of covenant was not enforceable against the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the deed of covenant, which purported to create a perpetual restriction on the use of certain land, was valid and enforceable against the respondent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if such a perpetual covenant ran with the land and bound subsequent owners, or if it was void for remoteness of the reversion.
The Court of Appeal, applying established principles of property law, held that the covenant was void for remoteness. It reasoned that a covenant that sought to impose a perpetual restriction on the use of land, without any corresponding benefit to other land owned by the covenantee, was an attempt to create a perpetual rent charge or an interest in land that was contrary to public policy and the established rules against perpetuities. The Court distinguished this situation from covenants that confer a benefit on adjoining land, which are generally enforceable.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the deed of covenant was not enforceable against the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.