Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) specifies that costs are in the discretion of the Court: Costs to be in the discretion of Court (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided by this or any other Act or by … Continue reading →
It is relatively unusual for large development applications to simultaneously seek both planning approval and the modification or removal of a restrictive covenant. This is particularly so for covenants created prior to 25 June 1991 where section 60(5) of the … Continue reading →
The Supreme Court has approved the use of section 84(1)(a) of the Property Law Act 1958 as a means of cleansing a title of a reference to a restrictive covenant with no further work to do. Practitioners have in the … Continue reading →
In Rose Burwood Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC  VCAT 755, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal adopted a potentially inexpensive means of construing a building materials covenant. The parties appear to have made written submissions to the Tribunal and … Continue reading →
It is important to remember that the Supreme Court will not enforce each and every breach of a restrictive covenant. A plaintiff discovered this, to his detriment, in Manderson v Smith S ECI 2020 03378. This case concerned a resident … Continue reading →
In Paragreen v Lim Group Holdings P/L  VSCA 84, the Court of Appeal (Tate, Kaye and Niall JJA) examined whether the respondent could enforce an unregistered restrictive covenant over a laneway against registered proprietors of land which included part of the laneway.
The applicants were the registered proprietors of a property in
1. In Foudoulis v O’Donnell  VSC 248, the Supreme Court (Mukhtar As J) considered the approach to be taken by the Court in assessing whether a proposal to modify a restrictive covenant would substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant.
2. The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of a
A common challenge in settling an application to modify a restrictive covenant pursuant to section 84 of the Property Law Act 1958 is dealing with beneficiaries’ concerns that “if we agree to this application, future developers will rely on it … Continue reading →
In Randell v Uhl  VSC 668, Derham AsJ has clarified the notice required before the Court will find a party to be bound by the terms of a building scheme. Where a building scheme is established, all purchasers and … Continue reading →
In April 2019, in Re: EAPE (Holdings) Pty Ltd  VSC 242, the Supreme Court found that when advancing a case for the modification of a single dwelling covenant, it is legitimate to say that the proposal for modification should … Continue reading →