Event and Time
Event Description
In this case, the appellant (the Club) leased a parcel of land from the respondent (the RSL). Under the lease, the Club covenanted to allow the RSL to conduct ceremonies, display memorabilia, and use certain facilities at the demised premises. After the RSL sold the land to an unrelated third party, they informed the RSL they would need to vacate. The RSL sought a declaration to confirm their continued entitlement to the benefits of the covenants even after the property sale.
Application and Claims
- The RSL claimed the covenants were personal and continued to bind the Club.
- The Club argued the covenants did not run with the land and ceased after the RSL sold the property.
Judicial Decisions
The court ruled in favor of the RSL, determining that the covenants were personal to the RSL and did not transfer to the new owner of the property, but continued to bind the Club as the covenantor for the term of the lease. The appeal by the Club was dismissed.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Appellant (Club):
- Argues the RSL lost all rights upon selling the property. - Contends covenants do not "touch and concern" the land and should not bind the new owner. - Claims damages awarded to the RSL are excessive and the RSL did not appropriately mitigate damage.
- Respondent (RSL):
- Insists that covenants are personal and remain enforceable. - Argues the rights under the lease were not transferred with the property and are bound to the Club regardless of ownership change. - Claims adequate damages are justified based on their loss of use of premises.
Ruling and Impact
Ruling Result
The court dismissed the Club's appeal, ruling that: