Rural View Developments Pty Ltd v Fastfort Pty Ltd

Rural View Developments Pty Ltd v Fastfort Pty Ltd involved a dispute over an easement granted by Rural View to Fastfort. The easement was intended for access and services as part of local authority approval conditions. The contract stipulated that the purchase was conditional upon the registration of the easement, but it did not specify that the easement should not include terms beyond those required by the local authority. The easement contained a covenant that each party was to be responsible for half of the costs of construction, repairs, maintenance, and upgrading of the infrastructure of the easement. Rural View sought specific performance of the contract, arguing that Fastfort had failed to comply with the terms of the easement.

The legal issues revolved around whether the burden of the positive covenant would run with the land, binding subsequent owners of the dominant tenement. The court had to determine if the covenant that each party be responsible for half of the upkeep of the infrastructure of the easement altered the nature of the easement, making it something other than what the parties had agreed upon. Furthermore, the court considered whether the covenant constituted an encumbrance upon the land, given that the contract specified "nil" encumbrances. Lastly, the court examined whether it would be futile or cause undue hardship to decree specific performance, considering Fastfort's financial situation and the involvement of its parent company.

The court ruled that the burden of the positive covenant did not run with the land and would not bind subsequent owners of the dominant tenement. The covenant did not alter the nature of the easement, as it was a necessary condition for the use of the land. The covenant was not an encumbrance, as it was not prohibited by the contract. Regarding specific performance, the court found that it was not futile or would not cause undue hardship to decree specific performance, as the second defendant, who controlled Fastfort and was its guarantor, had a net worth significantly exceeding the purchase price.

The court ordered specific performance of the contract, directing Fastfort to complete the purchase of the land as agreed.