11 May 2007
COLLINS & TEE V KO & KIM HC AK CIV 2007-404-1808
- Citation
- openlaw-c368973c_7148_4c2f_976b_cbcb0db025ae.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The consent was at least arguably an equitable restrictive covenant capable of supporting a caveat and could bind subsequent proprietors; however retention of the caveat had no practical value because the respondents lacked unanimous consent of all co-owners required to obtain exclusive use and there was no reasonable expectation that such consent would be obtained, so the court exercised its discretion under s143 to remove the caveat.