Roj Property Group Pty Ltd v Eventpower Property Pty Ltd

The case of Roj Property Group Pty Ltd v Eventpower Property Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the modification of a restrictive covenant on a property. The plaintiffs, Roj Property Group Pty Ltd, sought to modify a covenant that prohibited signage which did not directly relate to the business activities of the transferee or any tenant or occupier of the land. The defendants, Eventpower Property Pty Ltd, opposed the modification on the grounds that it would substantially injure them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the modification of the restrictive covenant would not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant, as required by section 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). The court considered the potential impact of the proposed modification on the defendants and whether it would significantly affect their rights under the covenant. The court found that the modification would not substantially injure the defendants and granted the application to modify the covenant. The court reasoned that the proposed modification would not significantly alter the defendants' rights and would allow the plaintiffs to carry out their business activities in a more flexible manner.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the legal principles set out in section 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). The court held that the modification would not substantially injure the defendants, as the covenant would still provide them with protection against inappropriate signage. The court also considered the broader context of the modification, including the nature of the business activities carried out on the land and the potential impact of the modification on the defendants' rights. The court concluded that the modification would not substantially injure the defendants and granted the application. The final orders of the court included the modification of the restrictive covenant to prohibit signage which does not directly relate to the business activities being carried out by the transferee on the land or by a tenant or occupier of the land. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application.