Parmurro Nominees Pty Ltd v Doughty - [2013] VSC 156

Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2011 01419

IN THE MATTER of the restrictive covenants contained in Instrument of Transfer No. 948840 in the Land Titles Office in the Register Book and imposed upon the land more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 4366 Folio 184 (“the First Described Land”), and Instrument of Transfer No. 930083 registered in the Land Titles Office in the Register Book and imposed upon the land more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 9488 Folio 590 (“the Second Described Land”)

B E T W E E N

PARMURRO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 355 108) and PAUL EDWARD PARADISIO and ROSEMARY PARADISIO	Plaintiffs
- and -
BRIAN DOUGHTY and GLENYS KAYE DOUGHTY	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	RANDALL AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 and 22 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Parmurro Nominees Pty Ltd and ors v Doughty and anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 156

---

REAL PROPERTY – Covenant – Restrictive covenant – Application to discharge or modify – Section 84, Property Law Act(Vic) 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr G. Moffatt	Sica & Co
For the Defendants	Mr T. Sowden	Law 554

HIS HONOUR:

Background and the application

The second plaintiff (“Mr Paradisio”) is a director of the first plaintiff (“the company”). The company is the registered proprietor of Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision No. 007709, being the whole of the land described in Certificate of Title Volume 4366 Folio 184 being the land situate and known as 78 Albion Street, Brunswick East (“No. 78”). Mr Paradisio together with his wife, the third plaintiff (“Mrs Paradisio”) are the registered proprietors of Lot 1 on Title Plan 188490 (formerly known as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision No. 007709), being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 9488 Folio 590 and being the land situate and known as 80 Albion Street, Brunswick East (“No. 80”).

Mr and Mrs Paradisio are also the registered proprietors of the land situate and known as 82 Albion Street, Brunswick East (“No. 82”). No. 82 is not the subject of the application brought before the Court by originating motion filed 29 March 2011. However, No. 82 is relevant in that the plaintiffs proposal will utilise a consolidation with No. 82 and the proposed development will incorporate No. 82.

The originating motion seeks orders pursuant to s 84(1) of the Property Law Act 1958 (“the Act”) that the covenants contained in Instrument of Transfer No. 958840 and in 930083 respectively in the Register Book be modified in so far as it shall be necessary to permit the erection of more than one dwelling on each of No. 78 and No. 80 or such number of dwellings on a consolidation of the two subject lots as the City of Moreland or any other Responsible Authority may allow. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parmurro Nominees Pty Ltd v Doughty and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] VSC 156
Decision Date: 9 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parmurro Nominees Pty Ltd has applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria to seek the discharge or modification of a restrictive covenant that appears in the title of a parcel of land owned by the respondent, Doughty. The covenant restricts the use of the land to residential purposes only, and Parmurro Nominees seeks to develop the land for commercial purposes. The dispute centres around the enforceability and relevance of the covenant in the context of modern land use and planning regulations.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the restrictive covenant was still enforceable given the changes in surrounding land use and planning laws. The court needed to consider the principles of equity, specifically whether the covenant had become obsolete or whether there were overriding public policy considerations that justified its enforcement. The court was also tasked with determining whether the covenant could be modified to permit the development proposed by Parmurro Nominees, in line with Section 84 of the Property Law Act (Vic) 1958.

In its reasoning, the court held that the covenant was still valid and enforceable as it had not become obsolete or been otherwise discharged. The court noted that the covenant was intended to preserve the character of the neighbourhood, and there was no evidence to suggest that the surrounding land use had changed in a manner that would render the covenant irrelevant. Furthermore, the court found that there were no public policy considerations that would justify discharging or modifying the covenant. Therefore, the application to discharge or modify the covenant was dismissed. The court did not see fit to modify the covenant to allow for commercial development, as it would contravene the original intent of the covenant and the planning regulations in place.

As a result, the court ordered that the restrictive covenant remain in force and effect, preventing Parmurro Nominees from developing the land for commercial purposes. The court’s decision highlights the importance of preserving the character of neighbourhoods and the role of restrictive covenants in achieving this goal.

Orders