Levi v Spicer [2001] NSWSC 924

Levi v Spicer [2001] NSWSC 924

The modification was refused because permitting a colourbond garage, clearly visible from the street, would substantially injure persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant by degrading the established streetscape and the amenity of the subdivision, notwithstanding lack of economic loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['restrictive Covenants' 'modification of Covenants' 'conveyancing Act S 89(1)(c)']
['real Property'] ['restrictive Covenants' 'modification of Covenants' 'conveyancing Act S 89(1)(c)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit the erection of a colourbond garage instead of brick and tile as required by the covenant under s 89(1)(c) of the Conveyancing Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The modification was refused because permitting a colourbond garage, clearly visible from the street, would substantially injure persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant by degrading the established streetscape and the amenity of the subdivision, notwithstanding lack of economic loss.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiffs' summons dismissed with costs."]