The Court sounds a note of caution to ambitious developers

The Supreme Court has refused an application to modify a single dwelling covenant to allow a 21 apartment development over two lots (~1,400sqm) in 9 Highlands Road in Thomastown–notwithstanding the absence of objectors in Court to oppose the application.

The decision of Re Morihovitis [2016] VSC 684 is somewhat different to the decision of Re Jensen [2012] VSC 638 where the Court refused a relatively modest unopposed application because it was proposed amongst a relatively intact network of single dwellings. Rather, the application in Re Morihovitis was found to be simply too great a departure from what the covenant originally contemplated:

 The absence of a single dwelling covenant on no. 11 immediately exposes the peculiar and testing feature of this application.  Subject to planning laws and considerations, there is nothing on title to prevent the plaintiff as owner of no. 11 from building an apartment block, or at the least, there is no restrictive covenant getting in the way of a planning application to do so.  But the presence of the restrictive covenant on no. 9 Highlands Road obliges the responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act to refuse to grant a planning permit unless the covenant over that land is removed or varied.  Thus, by this application Mr Morihovitis seeks under s 84(1) of the Property Law Act to modify the single dwelling covenant on no. 9 by deleting and adding words as shown in this way −

… not at any time hereafter excavate carry away or remove or permit to be excavated carried away or removed any earth clay stone gravel or sand from the said land hereby transferred except for the purpose of excavating for the foundations construction of any building and basement to be erected thereon and that not more than one dwelling house and outhouses shall be erected on the said lot hereby transferred

The Court therefore found it would alter the character of the neighbourhood:

The judgment to be made about ‘substantial injury’ turns on the nature and degree of the injury to those benefits.  Here, in my judgment, the location of the proposed development is not so removed from the residential area of the neighbourhood that it can be regarded as being sufficiently far away from it to say that such changes will not be seen and felt.  It will be a conspicuous part of the neighbourhood.  It will be the only apartment block in the neighbourhood.  The scale of the project and its departure from the scale of any existing residential developments in the neighbourhood, means that if it does not of itself create the sort of notorious problems of higher density living as I have identified them, it will in my judgment be the beginnings of altering the character of the neighbourhood.

Although the Plaintiff endeavoured to make the most of the absence of objectors, the Court pushed back on any suggestion it would give the Plaintiff a free rein:

No objectors have attended Court.  However, it is established in the legal authorities on these applications that the absence of objectors does not necessarily satisfy the onus of proof, and it certainly does not amount to implied assent. But as is commonly submitted in these applications, the absence of objectors ought go some way to overcome a court’s caution.  In this case, it was submitted that the absence of objectors willing to advance their objection to a substantial development such as this was especially significant, meaning to say I think the Court should not be overly cautious or assailed by the scale of the development in the assessment of substantial injury.  The submission went a little further.  It was submitted that known cases where such applications were refused were, or tended to be, opposed applications on which the Court could act on grounds of resistance from a beneficiaries according to evidence adduced by them.  In this case, although it was said that the Court has to play devil’s advocate, it was submitted the Court should, in the absence of objectors or any other evidence, act on the plaintiff’s evidence.     

I do not accept the amplitude of that submission.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff was held to the contract he struck when he purchased his land, at least insofar as the present development was concerned:

To put it in plain terms, Mr Morihovitis has bought land knowing of a negative covenant on it which binds him as if he made it by private contract.  He cannot use the land in defiance of that contract.  By statute this Court might discharge that obligation or modify it if doing so will not cause substantial injury to those to whom the promise was made.  That cannot be done by saying or assuming that the planning authority will ensure that the apartment development is in accordance with planning laws and regulations.  The question for the Court is whether the landowner should be relieved of his promise and allowed to build an apartment block in the first place, before it is subjected to planning scrutiny.  For the reasons I have given, in my judgment the plaintiff has not shown that the proposed modification will not cause substantial injury to those to whom the covenant was given.

Case database relevant to restrictive covenant advice and litigation

The following cases are for use in litigation and advice work. Some of these are available on Austlii, others are not.

If you have any interesting or significant cases that I’ve missed, please email them to me at

A duplicate file may suggest different varying formats (for example .doc and .pdf).

The suffix (ocr) suggests the file has been scanned for optical character recognition.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Brick no longer means ‘double-brick’ in building materials covenants

In Clare & Ors v Bedelis [2016] 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.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Construing a covenant: a restatement of principles

In the decision of Clare & Ors v Bedelis [2016] VSC 381 AsJ Derham has usefully restated the principles for construing or interpreting a covenants:

(a)               subject to the qualifications mentioned below, the ordinary principles of interpretation of written documents apply.[1]  The object of interpretation is to discover the intention of the parties as revealed by the language of the document in question;[2]

(b)               the words of a restrictive covenant:

(i)     should generally be given their ordinary and everyday meaning and not be interpreted using a technical or legal approach.[3]  Evidence may be admitted, however, as to the meaning of technical engineering, building or surveying terms and abbreviations;[4]

(ii)  must always be construed in their context, upon a reading of the whole of the instrument,[5]  and having regard to the purpose or object of the restriction;[6]

(c)                importantly, the words of a restrictive covenant should be given the meaning that a reasonable reader would attribute to them.[7]   The reasonable reader may have knowledge of such of the surrounding circumstances as are available.[8]   These circumstances may be limited to the most obvious circumstances having regard to the operation of the Torrens system and the fact that the covenant is recorded in the register kept by the Registrar of Titles.[9]  As the High Court held in Westfield:

The third party who inspects the Register cannot be expected, consistently with the scheme of the Torrens system, to look further for extrinsic material which might establish facts or circumstances existing at the time of the creation of the registered dealing and placing the third party (or any court later seized of a dispute) in the situation of the grantee…[10]

(d)              the words of the covenant should be construed not in the abstract but by reference to the location and the physical characteristics of the properties which are affected by it,[11] and having regard to the plan of subdivision and, depending on the evidence, possibly having regard to corresponding covenants affecting other lots in the estate;[12]

(e)               because the meaning of particular words depend upon their context (including the purpose or object of the restriction in a covenant) cases that consider similar words provide no more than persuasive authority as to the meaning of words in a different document.[13]  Further, the decisions upon an expression in one instrument are of very dubious utility in relation to another;[14]

(f)                 the rules of evidence assisting the construction of contracts inter partes, of the nature explained by Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales,[15] do not apply to the construction of easements and covenants;[16]

(g)               if the meaning remains in doubt after other rules of interpretation have been applied, as a last resort or ‘very late resort,’ the covenant should be construed contra proferentem, that is, against the covenantor;[17]

(h)               whether a covenant has been breached or not is a question of fact to be determined according to the facts of the case and in the light of the actual language in which the restrictive covenant is framed;[18] and

(i)                 generally speaking, the proper construction of an instrument intended to have legal effect is a question of law, not fact.[19]  On the other hand, the meaning of a particular word or expression in such an instrument may be a question of fact, particularly where the Court has already determined as a matter of construction that the word or expression is used in its ordinary and natural meaning.[20]

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

[1]               Bradbrook and Neave’s Easements and Restrictive Covenants, AJ Bradbrook and SV MacCallum, 3rd Ed, (‘Bradbrook & Neave’), [15.3].

[2]               Bradbrook & Neave; But see Prowse v Johnston & Ors [2012] VSC 4 at [55]–[58] (‘Prowse’).

[3]               Re Marshall and Scott’s Contract [1938] VLR 98, 99; Ferella v Otvosi (2005) 64 NSWLR 101 at 107 (‘Ferella’); Ex parte High Standard Constructions Limited (1928) 29 SR (NSW) 274 at 278 (‘High Standard’); Prowse at [52].

[4]               Phoenix Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2010] NSWCA 64 at [157]-[158](‘Phoenix); Westfield Management Limited v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited, (2007) 233 CLR 528 at [44] (‘Westfield’).

[5]               Ferella at 107; High Standard at 278;  Prowse at [52].

[6]               Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 at [22], 462 per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ); Phoenix at [148]-[149].

[7]               Phoenix at [157]-[158].   

[8]               These are limited by the decision in Westfield and subsequent decisions: see Sertari Pty Ltd v Nirimba Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 324; Berryman v Sonnenschein [2008] NSWSC 213; Shelbina Pty Ltd v Richards [2009] NSWSC 1449; Neighbourhood Association DP No 285220 v Moffat [2008] NSWSC 54; Fermora Pty Ltd v Kelvedon Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 281 at [33]-[34]; Prowse at [58].

[9]               Westfield at [37]-[42]; Sertari at [15]; Phoenix at [148]-[158].

[10]             Westfield at [39].

[11]             Richard van Brugge v Hare [2011] NSWSC 1364 at [36]; Big River Paradise Ltd v Congreve [2008] NZCA 78 at [23].

[12]             Sertari Pty Ltd v Nirimba Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 324 at [16]; See Fermora Pty Ltd v Kelvedon Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 281 at [33]; Prowse at [58].

[13]             Bradbrook & Neave at [15.4] citing Christie & Purdon v Dalco Holdings Pty Ltd [1964] Tas SR 34 at 41.

[14]             Ferella at [17]; In Re Marshall and Scott’s Contract [1938] VLR 98, at 100 where Mann CJ observed that small differences of language can be of great importance and that the decision often turns on them; Prowse at [54].

[15]             (1982) 149 CLR 337.

[16]             Westfield; Ryan v Sutherland [2011] NSWSC 1397 at [10]; Prowse at [57].

[17]             Ferella at [21]; Bradbrook & Neave’s at [15.6].

[18]             Per Herring CJ in In Re Bishop and Lynch’s Contract [1957] VLR 179 at 181; Prowse at [53].

[19]             See, in relation to statutes, S v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1998] 1 VR 83 at 88 (J D Phillips JA).  See, in relation to written contracts, FAI Insurance Co Ltd v Savoy Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 343 at 351 (Brooking J); O’Neill v Vero Insurance Ltd [2008] VSC 364 [10] (Beach J); Prowse at [53].

[20]             See S v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1998] 1 VR 83 at 88; cf Phoenix at [158]; Prowse at [53].

Regularising a longstanding breach of a covenant

There is a little known provision in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) that has been interpreted to allow the modification of a covenant without notice if the covenant has been breached for a period of two years or more. Section 47(2) of the Act provides:

(2)          Sections 52 and 55 do not apply to an application for a permit to remove a restriction (within the meaning of the Subdivision Act 1988) over land if the land has been used or developed for more than 2 years before the date of the application in a manner which would have been lawful under this Act but for the existence of the restriction.

Section 52 of the Act deals with advertising of applications for permits to potentially affected third parties and section 55 deals with referral to bodies such as DELWP, Telstra, VicRoads and so on.

In Hill v Campaspe SC [2004] VCAT 1399, the Tribunal explained:

26           My conclusion is that if part of a covenant is breached, and the breach continues for 2 years without any action on the part of those having the  benefit of the covenant, it is reasonable that no notice should be given of  an application to vary by removal part of the covenant of which there is a breach.  But this exemption from notice pursuant to section 47(2) of the Act should not extend to the removal of any aspect of a covenant of which there is no breach.

Although the proper interpretation of this provision is not free from doubt, this decision suggests that if a use or development has been in breach of a covenant for more than two years, a permit can be granted to remove or modify the covenant to regularise the use or development. If you rely on this provision, the relevant responsible authority under the Act should issue the permit to remove or amend the covenant without notifying other beneficiaries. However, as DP Gibson cautions, the power is limited, so any application should be judiciously drafted.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Court approves ambitious modification

The Supreme Court of Victoria has just approved one of the most ambitious modifications to date in a contested case, approving a four unit development on a parcel of land of 978sqm.

The decision of MacLurkin v Searle focused on the precedential effect of a modification application largely by reason of the fact that the closest beneficiaries did not object to it.

The Court held that the modification to the single dwelling and building materials covenant would not occasion substantial injury to beneficiaries in the terms meant by s84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 by reason of the subject land’s relative disconnection to the hinterland of the residential estate.

This is good news for applicants for modification, however, it seems the applicant will be limited to building a design generally in accordance with the plans tendered at the hearing:

82 It is true that in the First Easton Report the plans were just a sketch. But in the Second Easton Report the plans are much more detailed and, although plainly reduced from a larger size to an A4 size to fit the report, there did appear to be measurements and the like that would enable there to be some precision so that one could provide for the development to be substantially in accordance with those plans. The fact that they may not have been through the planning approvals process of the Responsible Authority may have the result that the plaintiff is not permitted to build substantially in accordance with those plans, but that is the plaintiff’s problem.

Once again, this highlights the importance of putting forward a design in a modification application that one can be confident will be approved by the Council or VCAT in the subsequent planning approval process.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Building materials covenants still have work to do in Victoria

In Gardencity Altona v Grech [2015] VSC 538 Associate Justice Lansdowne refused an application to remove a covenant requiring the main walls of any dwelling or shop on the land to be of brick and/or stone, on the basis that it could not be said that the covenant was obsolete, or that it’s removal would not occasion substantial injury to those with the benefit of the covenant.

No single dwelling covenant attached to the land, and so arguably, only the building materials covenant prevented the applicant from realising his development plans for the land.

Instrumental to her Honour’s reasoning was that the defendants had a genuine preference for the use of brick as a building material.

Her Honour also left open the possibility that if it were shown that removal of the brick or stone restriction would make a taller building less likely that may be a further benefit conferred by the restriction and so further reason why the restriction is not obsolete.

Significantly, the application was made in a neighbourhood found to be predominantly constructed with brick or stone:

142 I find on the whole of the evidence that the buildings in the neighbourhood predominantly have their main walls constructed in brick or stone. As indicated, I refer in this finding to the actual incidence of the use of brick or stone, rendered or exposed, not the visual incidence of exposed brick. By ‘predominantly’ I mean well more than half, and on a broad estimate at least two thirds.

This feature of the case will require close scrutiny for parties wishing to rely on the decision as a precedent.

Of particular interest is that the Court declined to apply the 1956 decision of Jacobs v Greig [1956] VLR 597, often cited as authority for the proposition that a requirement to build out of brick requires ‘double brick’ construction rather than brick veneer:

134 Having regard to Mr McLaughlin’s expert evidence that brick veneer is now an acceptable use of brick in construction, I consider the particular outcome in Jacobs v Greig to be limited to its particular facts and time. On the principle identified in that case, I find that an ordinary resident of Victoria would consider the covenants here in question do not now exclude brick veneer. Accordingly, I find that for this case at least, brick veneer is ‘brick’ for the purposes of the covenants, and like covenants in the area.

This is a welcome development given that double brick is now rarely used in Victoria for reasons of cost and energy efficiency.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

The Court reaffirms defendants’ right to costs, notwithstanding Calderbank offers

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle in Re: WIthers [1970} VR 319, that in restrictive covenant cases, defendants are ordinarily entitled to their standard costs, even if they lose the contested proceedings.

In a carefully considered decision, in Wong v McConville & Ors (No.2) [2014] VSC 282, AJ Derham rejected the plaintiff’s application for indemnity costs, notwithstanding that she made two “Calderbank offers”, or offers of compromise foreshadowing an application for indemnity costs should the defendants achieve a worse outcome at trial than the offer contained in the Calderbank letter.

Although a number of aspects of his Honour’s judgement turned on the particular facts of the merits hearing (see Wong v McConville & Ors [2014] VSC 148), the decision underscores the difficulty Plaintiffs face when endeavouring to settle an application to modify or remove a restrictive covenant prior to a contested hearing.

Some principles emerge from the case:

Calderbank offers are unlikely to be effective before all relevant evidence has been circulated:

There are usually no pleadings in cases of this kind, and there were none in this case. At the time the offer was made, and closed, the defendants had not, and had not been required to, file their evidence, including expert evidence. Nor had significant evidence in response to the evidence of the defendants, notably the Supplementary Report of Mr Easton, been filed or served. Thus the stage at which the offer was made preceded a full consideration of the relevant material. The prime focus of that material was the expert opinion of Mr Gattini, upon whose views the defendants were well entitled to depend in considering the offer, and Mr Easton’s response to it in October 2013. Another important element of the defendants’ evidence was the evidence of Mr Zhang concerning the effects of the proposed modification on the amenity of his, and his family’s, occupation of the neighbouring land. The defendants were entitled to consider the entirety of the evidence when considering their position. [Emphasis added]

Additional time, relative to ordinary proceedings, should be allowed to consider a Calderbank offer given the difficulty of getting instructions from a large group of objectors:

30… 14 days was allowed. Considered in isolation, that time is not umeasonable. This factor, however, must be considered in this case in conjunction with the first factor. The ability of the defendants, as a group, to consider the offer and arrive at a reasoned view must necessarily have been affected by the fact that they are brought together as neighbours. They were apparently not otherwise associated with one another. They lived at quite separate locations within the subdivision. They were encouraged by the Court’s orders to combine their resources so as to reduce costs. This, I infer, was likely to make it more difficult and time consuming to arrive at a decision. This is a matter that the plaintiff’s advisers ought to have known. Having regard to the state of the evidence at the time, either the offer was made too early, or insufficient time was given for them to consider the offer. [Emphasis added]

A good deal of ingenuity will be needed to devise an offer that is both attractive to defendants, but that will bind future owners of the land

35. The submission by the defendants that the concessions offered by the plaintiff in relation to setbacks and landscaping, in each of the 8 August and 10 October offers, could not form any part of an order of the Court modifying the covenant, has particular significance in this case. In this regard, the plaintiff submitted that the setback provision in the offer of 8 August could be made the subject of a negative stipulation (for example, that any dwelling at the rear of the burdened land shall not be closer than three metres to the southern boundary). The plaintiff’s counsel also submitted that the other elements of the offers could also be the subject of negative stipulations. I do not think that this is correct. It is, in my view beyond human ingenuity to turn a positive agreement to plant tall screening plants along the western and southern boundaries of the land into a negative stipulation. It must be remembered in this context, that it is immaterial whether the wording of the covenant is positive or negative. What is essential is that the covenant is negative in substance: Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham (No 2). [Emphasis added]

Read as a whole, the decision does not suggest Calderbank letters will be of no use in restrictive covenant cases. Rather, it perhaps suggests that they are unlikely to be effective much earlier than immediately before trial and that considerable efforts will be needed to devise an offer that is unreasonable for the defendants to reject on the merits. Solicitors will need to do far more than offer to reimburse the defendants’ costs in exchange for their collective capitulation.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Rethinking the usefulness of the Planning and Environment Act process

Reliance on cl52.02 of the relevant Planning Scheme (often referred to as the Planning and Environment Act (Act) process, as distinct from the Property Law Act process) for the removal or modification of restrictive covenants has a deservedly poor reputation for applicants, by reason of the conservative construction and application of s60 of the Act. As described by DP Gibson of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Hill v Campaspe SC [2011] VCAT 949, s60(5), at least, is “a high barrier that prevents a large proportion of proposals.”

However, a decision was handed down by VCAT last year that might cause applicants for the removal or modification of covenants to reconsider whether the Planning and Environment Act process remains an option in some cases involving covenants not fairly described as obsolete.

The case was King v Stonnington CC & Anor [2013] VCAT 939. It is notable for the fact that the application to vary a single dwelling covenant to allow the construction of a dual occupancy development was advertised to no fewer than 130 persons [see para 8]. And despite this, no beneficiary objected to the proposal to modify the covenant.

This case serves to illustrate that opposition can be predicted to a certain degree by the demographics of any given area. King v Stonnington concerned land in Malvern East–the area in which Chadstone shopping centre can be found. If one was making a similar application in Grange Road, Toorak, such a muted response might not be expected.

Matthew Townsend
Owen Dixon Chambers (04) 1122 0277
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

VCAT confirms 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is only useful for removing “deadwood” restrictive covenants

In the Red Dot decision of Giosis v Darebin CC [2013] VCAT 825, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal comprised of Senior Member H. McM Wright QC confirmed that 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) is useful for little more than removing “deadwood” or non-contentious restrictive covenants.

The case concerned an applicant seeking to review the decision of the Darebin City Council to refuse a permit to vary a restrictive covenant burdening land at 26 Maclagan Crescent, Reservoir (refer detail from Land Victoria, plan below).

The part of the covenant sought to be varied vary provides as follows.

(c)           no shops, laundries, factories or works shall be erected on this Lot and not more than one dwelling house shall be erected on any one Lot and the cost of constructing each house shall not be less than Four Hundred Pounds (inclusive of all architect’s fees and the cost of erecting any outbuildings and fences). [emphasis added]

The variation sought to replace the words “one dwelling house” with the words “three dwellings” thereby enabling the application to be made to redevelop the land for three units or dwellings.

There were five objectors, three of which were beneficiaries, all of whom lived 100m away from the burdened land.

The Council had refused the application on the grounds that:

The proposed variation to the Covenant … to allow not more than three dwellings to be constructed on the lot will result in detriment to beneficiaries and is therefore contrary to Section 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

60(5) of the Act provides:

(5)          The responsible authority must not grant a permit which allows the removal or variation of a restriction referred to in subsection (4) unless it is satisfied that –

(a)          the owner of any land benefitted by the restriction (other than a owner who, before or after the making of the application for the permit but not more than three months before its making, has consented in writing to the grant of a permit) will be unlikely to suffer any detriment of any kind (including any perceived detriment) as a consequence of the removal or variation of the restriction; and

(b)          if that owner has objected to the grant of the permit, the objection is vexatious or not made in good faith.

The Tribunal quoted from the second reading speech of the Planning and Environment (Amendment) Act 1993 (Vic) that inserted section 60(5) into the Act. This speech coined the term “deadwood” covenants or covenants without a continuing purpose:

The effect of the clause is that permits should be granted only for “dead wood” covenants if no owner benefitting from the covenant objects to its removal or variation. The alterative avenues to remove or vary a covenant remain in place, being applications to the Supreme Court under the Property Law Act 1958 and the preparation of a planning scheme amendment.

After quoting from Carabott and Ors v Hume City Council (1998) 22 AATR 261 that considered the effect of s60(5) of the Act in some detail, the Tribunal raised a particular flaw with the proposal before it—the absence of plans:

17           Unlike many applications for a variation of a restrictive covenant the present applicant has not concurrently sought approval for any particular form of development. This makes it difficult for the responsible authority to be satisfied as required by paragraph (a) because it must consider all possible forms of three unit multi-dwelling development and conclude that it is unlikely that any of them would cause detriment to a benefitting owner.

The Tribunal found in the absence of a firm development proposal there were an infinite number of three unit or three dwelling developments that could take place in consequence of the variation of the covenant and that it could not be “positively satisfied of a negative, namely, that there is unlikely to be detriment of any kind”:

21           … In my view it is simply not possible to say that none of those developments would be likely to have a detrimental impact of some kind on the benefitting properties, particularly the adjoining units at 28 Maclagan Crescent. The application for permit therefore falls at the first hurdle.

This case therefore underscores the limited utility of applying to VCAT to modify or remove a covenant in the face of heartfelt opposition on the part of one or more beneficiaries. The absence of plans simply made the task more difficult.