IN THE MATTER of an application for the modification of the restriction arising under the covenant in transfer of land registered no. 2245509 dated 5 August 1949 affecting the land at 22 Derrick Street, Lalor, being lot 192 on plan of subdivision no. 20067 and being the land in folio of the Register volume 7684 folio 183.

BETWEEN:

CON SOFOKLIS LAHANIS

Plaintiff

ROBYN LIVESAY & ORS

(according to the attached Schedule)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 September 2020 (Final submissions 2 and 5 October 2020)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 February 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lahanis v Livesay & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 29

---

PROPERTY LAW – Restrictive covenant preventing more than one dwelling on a suburban land – Application to modify the covenant to permit two dwellings to be constructed on the land – Whether discharge or modification will not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit – Whether neighbourhood retains the peaceful and tranquil character due to the network of single dwelling covenants – Whether approval of modification would set a precedent for other modifications – Whether existing multi-dwellings in the neighbourhood had already set such a precedent or had eroded any special character the covenant had previously assisted to maintain – Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 84(1)(c) – Re Cook [1964] VR 808; Vrakas v Registrar of Titles [2008] VSC 281; Prowse v Johnstone [2012] VSC 4; MacLurkin v Searle [2015] VSC 750; Jiang v Monaygon Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 591; Randell v Uhl [2019] VSC 668; Hivance Pty Ltd v Moscatiello & Ors [2020] VSC 183.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr W Rimmer	Aughtersons Solicitors
For the Defendants	Mr P Barton	Bevan-Rhys James

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary of conclusions................................................................................... 1

The Covenant...................................................................................................................................... 2

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 3

Applicable Law................................................................................................................................... 4

Background facts.............................................................................................................................. 10

Location of the Land................................................................................................................... 10
The neighbourhood.................................................................................................................... 11
Changes in the neighbourhood................................................................................................. 13
Multi-unit developments.................................................................................................. 15
Large singe dwelling houses............................................................................................ 18

Planning and building controls................................................................................................ 21
The plaintiff’s proposal.............................................................................................................. 22

Defendant’s lay evidence............................................................................................................... 24

Expert opinions................................................................................................................................. 30

The plaintiff’s submissions........................................................................................................... 32

Birdlife.......................................................................................................................................... 38
Historical character of the area and architectural style......................................................... 39
No indirect injury of substance from the plaintiff’s proposal – no precedential effect.... 39
Modification to the non-excavation covenant........................................................................ 44
Removal of requirement for consent of Peter Lalor Co-operative....................................... 44

Defendants’ submissions............................................................................................................... 46

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 47

The single dwelling restriction.................................................................................................. 47
Approval of the Co-operative................................................................................................... 57
The quarrying restriction........................................................................................................... 58

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 58

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary of conclusions

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the land at 22 Derrick Street, Lalor, Victoria (Land).[1] The title to the Land is burdened with a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lahanis v Livesay

Details

AGLC: Lahanis v Livesay [2021] VSC 29
Case: [2021] VSC 29
Decision Date: 4 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lahanis v Livesay, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application to modify a restrictive covenant on a suburban property. The covenant, which restricted the property to a single dwelling, was in place to maintain the peaceful and tranquil character of the neighbourhood. The applicants sought to modify the covenant to allow for the construction of two dwellings on the property. The legal issues before the court included whether modifying the covenant would not substantially injure the persons entitled to its benefit, whether the neighbourhood would retain its character, and whether approving the modification would set a precedent for other modifications. The court also considered whether existing multi-dwellings in the neighbourhood had already set such a precedent or had eroded any special character the covenant had previously assisted to maintain.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law, including the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) and cases such as Re Cook, Vrakas v Registrar of Titles, Prowse v Johnstone, MacLurkin v Searle, Jiang v Monaygon Pty Ltd, Randell v Uhl, and Hivance Pty Ltd v Moscatiello & Ors. The court found that the modification would not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant and that the neighbourhood would retain its peaceful and tranquil character. The court also found that the existing multi-dwellings in the neighbourhood had already set a precedent and had eroded any special character the covenant had previously assisted to maintain. Therefore, the court granted the application to modify the covenant.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case provide guidance to property owners and developers in similar situations. The court's decision demonstrates that restrictive covenants can be modified if the modification will not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant, and if the neighbourhood will retain its character. The court's consideration of the precedent set by existing multi-dwellings in the neighbourhood is also significant, as it highlights the importance of considering the broader context in which a restrictive covenant operates. The final orders of the court granted the application to modify the covenant, allowing the applicants to construct two dwellings on the property.

Orders