Plaintiffs, prove your case

The Supreme Court has again dismissed an application to vary a covenant by reason of a plaintiff’s failure to discharge its evidentiary burden under s84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958.

In Del Papa v Falting & Ors, Lansdowne AsJ held:

80 It is important to keep in mind, however, that the burden is not on the defendants to establish injury; rather, it is on the plaintiff to discount it. Mr Chapman concedes that he did not inspect the rear of the Subject Land and so its interface with the only adjacent benefited land, that owned by the eleventh and twelfth defendants. Accordingly, there is no evidence that there will be no substantial direct injury to this portion of benefited land.

81 This absence of evidence in relation to direct impact on the land of the eleventh and twelfth defendants, does undermine the plaintiff’s case pursuant to s 84(1)(c). The more significant factor in its failure, is, however, that the plaintiff has failed, in my view, to show that there will be no substantially injurious precedential effect of the proposed modification.

The Court was also unimpressed with the Plaintiff’s bifurcated application:

20 Mr Del Papa’s evidence is that he and his wife would be prepared to build in accordance with schematic design plans dated February 2017 that he attaches to his affidavit. An enlarged version is Exhibit F. These plans show two options. Option A is for two very substantial two storey dwellings, one five bedroom plus rumpus room and study, and one four bedroom plus rumpus room and study. Option B is for three slightly smaller, but still very substantial, two storey dwellings, each five bedroom plus rumpus room.

131 I would also have been troubled by the fact that the proposed development is not even certain as to number of dwellings, as the plaintiff seeks either a two, or a three, lot subdivision. This is a matter that the Court can of course determine, if persuaded to grant the application, but it does raise a question as to the degree of commitment of the plaintiff to pursue her advanced proposals if the application is granted.

The take away lesson for applicants is that when you move from an uncontested application to a contested hearing, you need to make a first-principles re-assessment of the evidentiary basis of your application: revisit the plans, revisit the site and reassess the forensic basis upon which you say a precedent will not be created.

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.

Dealing with deregistered companies referred to in restrictive covenants

Restrictive covenants in Victoria often give development discretion to companies that have long been deregistered. A good example is the series of covenants affecting the area around Altona that may provide:

… nor will I or my heirs executors administrators or transferees use any material other than brick and/or stone for the main walls of any such shop or dwelling house without the consent in writing of the said Altona Beach Estates Limited

Altona Beach Estates Limited, the original developer of the land, has long ceased to exist.

A question is then raised: how will the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) exercise its discretion if it is called upon to act in the capacity of the deregistered company pursuant to section 601AE(2) of the Corporations Act 2001?

Helpfully, ASIC has produced a practice note of sorts to explain its policy in relation to such requests.

This policy states that ASIC may consider applications for consent under an encumbrance (e.g. plans of subdivision where there is no specific prohibition to subdivision in the encumbrance; construction of a fence within the restrictions/conditions of the encumbrance) and may consider applications to discharge expired encumbrances. However, ASIC will not otherwise vary the restrictions/conditions of an encumbrance or discharge a current encumbrance.

It is not then, as some might have you believe, a fait accomplis that the discretion will be exercised in the applicant’s favour.

The policy can be found here: http://asic.gov.au/for-business/closing-your-company/effects-of-deregistration/property-of-deregistered-companies/there-is-an-encumbrance-also-known-as-a-covenant-or-restrictive-covenant-over-my-property-in-favour-of-a-deregistered-company/