Manderson v Wright (No 2)

In the case of Manderson v Wright, the parties were engaged in a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a restrictive covenant in relation to property development. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Wright, admitted to breaching the restrictive covenant by constructing a commercial building on his property, which was in violation of the covenant that limited the property's use to residential purposes only. The plaintiff, Manderson, sought an injunction to enforce the covenant and sought damages for the breach.

The central legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the plaintiff's conduct disentitled him to the relief sought, whether damages under the Lord Cairns Act should be awarded instead of an injunction, and whether an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant. The court considered the principle from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co, which established the 'good working rule', and relevant case law such as LJP Investments Pty Ltd v Howard Chia Investments Pty Ltd and Break Fast. The court had to balance the need to enforce the covenant against the potential hardship an injunction would cause the defendant.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenant, despite his delay in commencing proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not disentitle him to the relief sought, and the 'good working rule' did not apply in this case. The court also determined that damages under the Lord Cairns Act were not an appropriate remedy because the covenant was clear and enforceable. Additionally, the court concluded that an injunction would not be oppressive to the defendant, as the covenant was a valid and enforceable restriction on the use of the property.

The final orders of the court included a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove the commercial building from his property and restore it to a residential use, within a specified timeframe. The court also ordered the defendant to pay costs associated with the proceedings.