WILCOX and ORS v RICHARDSON and ORS [1997] NSWCA 342

WILCOX and ORS v RICHARDSON and ORS [1997] NSWCA 342

The sub-lease covered only part of Lot 276; appellants have implied rights (of a Wheeldon v Burrows kind) to access and use certain shared and exclusive areas necessary for reasonable enjoyment and business efficacy; the restrictive covenant applies only to Lot 277; misrepresentation claims fail for lack of reliance; only limited rectification relief is available.

Parties
Appellant: Wilcox and ORS; Respondent: Richardson and ORS; Respondent: Second respondent; Respondent: Third respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Leases, Easements, Implied Terms, Construction of Lease, Restrictive Covenants, Rectification, Misrepresentation, Estoppel
Property Law Contract Law Equity Leases Easements Implied Terms Construction of Lease Restrictive Covenants +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilcox and ORS

Appellant

Richardson and ORS

Respondent

Second respondent

Respondent

Third respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What area of Lot 276 was covered by the sub-lease?
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had exclusive possession and ancillary rights over areas outside the servery?
  3. 3 Whether restrictive covenant applied to Lot 276 or Lot 277?

Ratio Decidendi

The sub-lease covered only part of Lot 276; appellants have implied rights (of a Wheeldon v Burrows kind) to access and use certain shared and exclusive areas necessary for reasonable enjoyment and business efficacy; the restrictive covenant applies only to Lot 277; misrepresentation claims fail for lack of reliance; only limited rectification relief is available.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Declarations 2 and 3 made in the Equity Division set aside.
  • Judgment for possession in favour of the first defendants against the plaintiffs and consequential orders, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 set aside.