Del Papa v Falting

[2018] VSC 384

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2016 01810

SANDRA DEL PAPA	Plaintiff
v
ASHLEY FALTING & ORS (according to the schedule attached)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 7 and 8 September 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 July 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Del Papa v Falting & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 384

---

PROPERTY – Restrictive covenant – Application for modification of single dwelling covenant to allow subdivision – Whether covenant obsolete – Held not obsolete – Whether modification would occasion substantial injury by reason of precedential effect – Whether past subdivisions and modifications mean that modification would not set a precedent – Restriction to single dwelling to remain on subdivided lots so not a precedent for multi dwellings – Does set a precedent for smaller lot size – Plaintiff not proved that there would be no substantial injury to beneficiaries – Application for modification refused – Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 84(1)(a) and s 84(1)(c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N Jones	Subdivision Lawyers
For the First to Thirteenth Defendants	Mr M Townsend	MPW Lawyers
For the Fourteenth Defendant	Ms T Acreman	Maddocks

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Factual background........................................................................................................................... 2

History of the titles and the Covenant....................................................................................... 2

The Subject Land........................................................................................................................... 6

Plaintiff’s proposal........................................................................................................................ 6

Legal principles.................................................................................................................................. 8

Section 84(1)(a): obsolete.............................................................................................................. 8

Section 84(1)(c): no substantial injury and residual discretion.............................................. 9

Submissions in summary............................................................................................................... 13

Obsolescence..................................................................................................................................... 14

Expert evidence........................................................................................................................... 14

Neighbourhood........................................................................................................................... 17

Purpose of the Covenant............................................................................................................ 21

Conclusion as to obsolescence.................................................................................................. 22

Substantial injury............................................................................................................................. 24

Effect on amenity......................................................................................................................... 25

Precedential effect....................................................................................................................... 29

Benefits accruing from the Covenant.............................................................................. 30

Precedent: subdivision to date........................................................................................ 33

Spread of single dwelling covenants.............................................................................. 39

Lot size................................................................................................................................ 40

Conclusion on substantial injury.............................................................................................. 45

Discretion........................................................................................................................................... 45

Summary of conclusions................................................................................................................. 46

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

1. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land known as 29 Frank Street, Balwyn North, more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 8511 Folio 877 and Lot 1 TP515311Y (Subject Land).  It is a large parcel of land that is directly opposite Greythorn Park.  The Subject Land is encumbered by a restrictive covenant contained in Instrument of Transfer 2596731 (Covenant) that prevents the construction on it of more than one single dwelling house.

1. The plaintiff seeks to modify the Covenant to remove the single dwelling restriction and allow the Subject Land to be subdivided into two lots or alternatively into three lots.  The proposal is that the single dwelling restriction remain on each subdivided lot.  The plaintiff herself does not give any evidence, but her husband’s evidence is that if the modification is permitted it is their intention to retain the Subject Land, and build either two or three houses on it for members of their family, depending on which modification is permitted.

1. The application was advertised in accordance with the Court’s usual practice, and has attracted considerable opposition.  An application to…