Webster v Lampard

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Webster and Lampard concerning the interpretation and effect of a deed of covenant. The central issue revolved around whether the covenant, which purported to restrict the use of certain land, was enforceable against the current registered proprietor, Lampard, who had acquired the land without notice of the covenant.

The court was required to determine whether the covenant ran with the land at common law or in equity, and if so, whether it was enforceable against a purchaser for value without notice. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants against successors in title, particularly in light of the Torrens system of land registration.

The High Court held that the covenant did not run with the land at common law because it did not satisfy the requirements for a covenant to bind future owners, such as being of a nature that touched and concerned the land. However, the court found that the covenant was enforceable in equity. Applying the principles established in *Tulk v Moxhay*, the court determined that a restrictive covenant would bind a purchaser of land with notice, whether actual, constructive, or imputed. Crucially, the court affirmed that under the Torrens system, a registered proprietor who acquires land without notice of an unregistered restrictive covenant is not bound by it.

Ultimately, the High Court found that Lampard, as a registered proprietor who acquired the land for value without notice of the unregistered covenant, was not bound by it. The appeal was therefore dismissed.