Randell v Uhl

Randell was the owner of land in a subdivision in Victoria, and Uhl owned neighbouring land. The dispute arose from a restrictive covenant in a plan of subdivision that restricted the use of Randell’s land to one dwelling house. Randell applied to the Supreme Court to modify the covenant to allow for the construction of a second dwelling on the land. Uhl opposed the application, arguing that the covenant was valid and should not be modified.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plan of subdivision was the subject of a building scheme, whether notice of the building scheme was sufficient, and whether the modification of the covenant would substantially injure Uhl. The court found that the plan of subdivision was indeed the subject of a building scheme, and that Uhl had sufficient notice of the scheme. The court also found that the modification of the covenant would not substantially injure Uhl. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), s 84(1)(c), and found that the application should be granted.

The court held that the modification of the restrictive covenant was permissible under the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), s 84(1)(c), and that the plan of subdivision was the subject of a building scheme. The court found that Uhl had sufficient notice of the building scheme and that the modification of the covenant would not substantially injure Uhl. The court considered the principles set out in the Act and found that the application should be granted. The court made an order modifying the restrictive covenant to allow for the construction of a second dwelling on Randell’s land.