Worth v Willows

In *Worth v Willows*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Worth, and the respondent, Willows, concerning the interpretation and enforceability of a deed. The deed in question contained a restrictive covenant that purported to prevent the respondent from carrying out certain activities on their land.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the restrictive covenant contained in the deed was valid and enforceable against the respondent. This involved determining whether the covenant ran with the land and, if so, whether it imposed a legally binding obligation on the respondent as the successor in title to the original covenantor. The Court also had to consider the scope and meaning of the restrictive terms within the deed itself.

The Court of Appeal found that the restrictive covenant was not enforceable against the respondent. It reasoned that the covenant did not satisfy the requirements for a covenant to run with the land at common law, particularly in relation to the intention of the parties and the benefit of the covenant. Furthermore, the Court held that the language of the covenant was ambiguous and did not clearly impose a restriction that would bind a subsequent owner of the land. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.