Gardencity Altona v Grech & ors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2012 05752

IN THE MATTER of an Application under Section 84 of the Property Law Act 1958

BETWEEN:

GARDENCITY ALTONA PTY LTD (ACN 113 976 935)	Firstnamed Plaintiff
SONNY AUSTRALIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 603 071 101)	Secondnamed Plaintiff
v
DENNIS GRECH AND OTHERS (according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28, 29, 30 May 2014 and 26 June 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gardencity Altona v Grech and ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 538

---

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – application to remove restriction in covenants to construction in brick or stone – whether the plaintiff is required to identify all beneficiaries of the covenants – whether brick veneer complies with the restriction - whether the restriction is obsolete – consideration of the proper neighbourhood - no evidence of change in the neighbourhood - covenant complied with on subject land – variety of materials in the neighbourhood but brick the most common material - restriction not obsolete – whether removal of the restriction will cause no substantial injury to the defendants – defendants have genuine and reasonable preference for brick – other amenity interests of defendants not protected by the restriction - some non- adherence to like covenants shown but also adherence - no proposal from the plaintiff in the light of which the effect of removal of the restriction can be considered- removal of the restriction would cause uncertainty – precedential effect of removal of the restriction – not shown removal of the restriction will not substantially injure the persons entitled to its benefit – application dismissed- Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 84(1)(a) and (c).

JOINDER – subject land sold after trial but before judgment – purchaser joined as second plaintiff by consent.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Firstnamed Plaintiff	Ms T J Acreman	Simon A Nixon
For the Secondnamed Plaintiff	Mr M G R Gronow (on 26 June 2015)	P & B Law (on 26 June 2015)
For the Defendants	Mr M D Townsend	Russell Kennedy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 1

Summary of conclusions.............................................................................................................. 2

Procedural history........................................................................................................................ 4

Facts....................................................................................................................................................... 7

History of the titles and the covenants...................................................................................... 7

Benefited land.................................................................................................................... 12

The parties acquire their land................................................................................................... 16

The character of the area............................................................................................................ 19

Plaintiff’s proposals.................................................................................................................... 21

Legal principles................................................................................................................................ 23

S 84(1)(a): obsolete....................................................................................................................... 24

‘Obsolete’............................................................................................................................ 24

‘Neighbourhood’............................................................................................................... 25

Change or other circumstances........................................................................................ 25

S 84(1)(c): no substantial injury................................................................................................. 25

Generally...................................................................................................................................... 28

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 29

Plaintiff......................................................................................................................................... 29

Obsolescence...................................................................................................................... 29

No substantial injury........................................................................................................ 30

Defendants................................................................................................................................... 31

Obsolescence...................................................................................................................... 32

No substantial injury........................................................................................................ 33

Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Purpose of the restriction........................................................................................................... 34

Neighbourhood and beneficiaries............................................................................................ 36

Does brick veneer comply with the restriction?..................................................................... 40

Current extent of the use of brick............................................................................................. 41

Change.......................................................................................................................................... 45

Non-compliance with the materials restriction...................................................................... 48

The defendants’ views................................................................................................................ 51

Benefit by way of limitation on height?................................................................................... 56

Uncertainty................................................................................................................................... 57

Creation of a precedent.............................................................................................................. 59

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................…