Wegner v Pereira

[2025] VSC 387

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2024 03026

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM WEGNER & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
JOSEPH JUSTINO PEREIRA & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wegner v Pereira
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 387

---

PROPERTY LAW — Real Property — Preliminary trial of questions under r 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) — Whether plaintiffs’ land has benefit of restrictive covenant burdening defendants’ land — Whether subject land is part of a building scheme — Whether defendants were notified of building scheme in the absence of notice of scheme on certificate of title or any other registered instrument noted on certificate of title — Notice of building scheme, nature of restrictive covenant and identity of lands affected by building scheme must be present on certificate of title or instrument noted on certificate of title — Not permissible to rely on evidence extraneous to certificate of title and instruments referred in it to show knowledge of building scheme under Torrens principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr G Nash KC of counsel	Access Law
For the Defendants	Mr W Rimmer of counsel	KO Construction Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

The parties’ materials................................................................................................................... 2

Relevant history of the land......................................................................................................... 2

Question 1: Does the restrictive covenant in registered instrument of transfer No. AN882546V benefit the Wegner Land?.................................................................................................. 5

Analysis................................................................................................................... 5

Question 2: Does the Covenant benefit the land described in folio of the Register volume 12140 folio 102, of which the second plaintiff and his wife (now deceased) are the registered proprietors?.......................................................................................................................... 6

Construction of the intended land to be annexed with the benefit of the Covenant excludes lot A........................................................................................................................... 7

The defendants’ submissions................................................................................ 7

The plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................. 11

The defendants’ submissions in reply............................................................... 15

Analysis................................................................................................................. 19

The ownership of further subdivided lots being parts of cancelled lot A was not ascertainable on the date of the transfer..................................................................................... 23

The defendants’ submissions.............................................................................. 23

The plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................. 23

Analysis................................................................................................................. 26

The legislative scheme supports the defendants’ submissions that the cancelled lot A was not land comprised in PS701111J as at 30 May 2017........................................ 26

The defendants’ submissions.............................................................................. 26

The plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................. 30

Analysis................................................................................................................. 30

Question 3: Assuming for the purpose only of this preliminary question that a building scheme was created over plan of subdivision PS701111J at the time each of the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ predecessors in title took transfers of their respective lots in that plan from the common vendor: Are the plaintiffs now entitled in equity by reason of that building scheme to enforce the covenant entered into by the defendants’ predecessors in title with the common vendor, against the defendants as current registered proprietors of the land described in folio of the Register volume 11564 folio 395?.......................................... 30

The…