Citta Hobart Pty Ltd & Anor v Cawthorn

Citta Hobart Pty Ltd and another party (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a restrictive covenant registered on the title of a property in Hobart, which purported to prevent the construction of any building other than a single private dwelling house. The appellants sought to develop the property for the purpose of constructing a multi-storey apartment building, which the respondent, a neighbouring property owner, argued was prohibited by the covenant.

The High Court was required to determine whether the restrictive covenant, as registered, was valid and enforceable according to its terms. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the covenant, by its language, prohibited the construction of a multi-storey apartment building, and if so, whether such a prohibition was legally effective. The central question revolved around the precise meaning and scope of the phrase "a single private dwelling house" within the context of the covenant.

The High Court held that the covenant, by its plain and ordinary meaning, prohibited the erection of anything other than a single private dwelling house. Their Honours Gageler and Gordon JJ reasoned that the covenant was not ambiguous and clearly restricted the use of the land to a single dwelling. They applied the principle that restrictive covenants are to be construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning, and that any ambiguity is not to be resolved in favour of imposing a restriction. The court found that a multi-storey apartment building, by its nature, constituted more than "a single private dwelling house" and therefore fell foul of the covenant. The appeal was dismissed.