Randell v Uhl

[2019] VSC 668

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Property
2. › Restrictive covenants
3. › Modification of covenants
4. › Application under s 84(1)(c) Property Law Act 1958 (Vic)
5. › Whether modification will not substantially injure persons entitled to benefit
6. › Single dwelling restriction
7. › Modification to allow two dwellings on two lots
8. › Assessment of neighbourhood character
9. › Precedent value of modification
1. Property
2. › Restrictive covenants
3. › Building scheme
4. › Requirements for establishment of building scheme
5. › Elliston v Reacher requirements
6. › Whether common vendor laid out estate for sale subject to restrictions
7. › Whether restrictions intended for benefit of all lots
8. › Whether purchasers purchased on footing restrictions would apply to all lots
1. Property
2. › Restrictive covenants
3. › Building scheme
4. › Notice requirement under Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic)
5. › Whether notification on head title sufficient
6. › Whether title search reveals existence of scheme
7. › Dennerstein requirements
8. › Whether notice given directly or by reference to instrument accessible from title search

Quick Take

A notation of a building scheme on the Head Title of a subdivision is insufficient to give notice of the scheme to a purchaser of land under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) where a search of the purchaser's certificate of title does not refer to the Head Title or any instrument that would reveal the scheme. The modification of a single dwelling covenant to permit two dwellings (one per lot after re-subdivision) does not substantially injure beneficiaries where the neighbourhood character of single dwellings in a bush setting is maintained and the modification is unlikely to create a precedent.