In Clare & Ors v Bedelis  VSC 381 AsJ Derham found that a house built using a wooden sub-frame, did not breach a building materials covenant preventing the construction of a dwelling house “other than one having walls of brick or stone.”
In doing so, the Victorian Supreme Court effectively set aside the approach that has been in place since the 1956 decision of Sholl J in Jacobs v Greig VLR 597 that has often been said to require houses subject to such building materials covenants to be double brick construction:
113 In my unaccompanied view of the Land and neighbourhood, it became apparent that the bulk of the houses were constructed with an external appearance of brick. Some had upper levels that included timber. But the overall appearance of the neighbourhood was that the houses were substantial in size and built of brick, whether that was solid brick or brick veneer could not be seen. Apart from the decision in Jacobs v Greig, there is no warrant in this case for the conclusion that the requirement, in effect, that the dwelling house on the Land be constructed with walls of brick or stone has the purpose of anything more than the aesthetic appearance of the house and the avoidance of low quality materials. As I have said, I am not prepared to take judicial notice that strength, durability or any other matter forms a part of the purpose of the Covenant. The evidence before Sholl J in Jacobs v Greig is not before me. In any event, that decision was merely an interlocutory decision arrived at on the basis that there was a prima facie case that the construction of the covenant required solid or cavity brick and not brick veneer. …
119 The evidence in this case clearly shows that the house has walls of brick, albeit brick veneer. There is nothing in the covenant that requires the roof to be supported by the brick walls as distinct from the timber frame. There is no evidence produced by the plaintiffs to establish that the meaning of the expression ‘walls of brick or stone’ in 1956 or indeed at any other time, does not embrace brick veneer walls. I am therefore not satisfied that the house under construction is in breach of the covenant because it is constructed with walls of brick veneer.
Owen Dixon Chambers
firstname.lastname@example.org (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
Pingback: Brick no longer means ‘double-brick’ in building materials covenants | Australian Law Blogs