Prowse v Johnstone

The case of Prowse v Johnstone involved a dispute regarding a restrictive covenant on a parcel of land. The respondent, Prowse, claimed that a covenant in the transfer of land was invalid and sought a declaration to this effect. The appellant, Johnstone, sought to enforce the covenant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the case was whether the restrictive covenant in the transfer of land was validly amended in 1912 and whether the burden of the covenant ran with the land. This required the court to determine whether the person who made the amendments was properly identified, the legislative provision under which the amendments were made, and whether there were any evidentiary inferences that could be drawn from the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and considered the relevant legislative provisions. It found that the person who made the amendments to the covenant was not properly identified, and therefore, the amendments were not validly made. The court also noted that the legislative provision under which the amendments were made did not apply, and there were no evidentiary inferences that could be drawn from the evidence presented. The court held that the restrictive covenant was not validly amended and therefore did not run with the land. Consequently, the appellant's claim to enforce the covenant was dismissed.

The court made a declaration that the restrictive covenant in the transfer of land was not validly amended in 1912 and did not run with the land. The court also dismissed the respondent's claim for costs. This decision has important implications for the enforceability of restrictive covenants and the importance of proper identification of the person making amendments to such covenants.