Re RJ and RG Bakey Pty Ltd

The parties involved in this case were RJ and RG Bakey Pty Ltd, the applicants, and the respondent, who was not named in the summary. The applicants sought to modify a restrictive covenant attached to a parcel of land they owned. The covenant, originally created in 1953, restricted, among other things, the number of dwellings that could be erected on the land to one. The applicants proposed a development involving the subdivision of the land and the construction of four new dwellings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether a precedent had already been set by previous developments on the land that could justify modifying the covenant. Another issue was whether modifying the covenant would substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant. The applicants argued that the original purpose of the covenant had been fulfilled, and that the restriction on the value of a house erected on the land should be discharged. The respondent argued that the modification of the covenant would substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant.

The court found that the precedent set by previous developments on the land did not justify modifying the covenant. The court also found that modifying the covenant would substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant. The court held that the original purpose of the covenant was still relevant in determining whether the covenant should be modified. The court was not persuaded by the applicants' argument that the restriction on the value of a house erected on the land should be discharged. The court partially refused the application, allowing the modification of the covenant to permit the construction of two additional dwellings on the land, but not four.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants' application to modify the restrictive covenant was partially refused. The court allowed the modification of the covenant to permit the construction of two additional dwellings on the land, but not four. The court held that the original purpose of the covenant was still relevant in determining whether the covenant should be modified, and that the modification of the covenant would substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant. The court also held that the precedent set by previous developments on the land did not justify modifying the covenant.