Fortunate Investments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council
[2001] NSWLEC 70
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
Decision date
2001-03-15
Before
Pearlman J, Mr P
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (73 paragraphs)
- The applicant opposes the imposition of a restrictive covenant on the title principally because it is concerned about the inflexibility which such a restrictive covenant will impose. A restrictive covenant on the title is notice to all the world, but it can only be varied either in accordance with its terms, that is, with the written consent of the council, or upon an application to the Supreme Court. This Court has no jurisdiction in respect of dispute about restrictive covenants once created. This Court does, however, have jurisdiction to grant modification to conditions of a development consent under s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The applicant fears that its right to seek such a modification will be limited by the fact that there will be a restrictive covenant on the title. Its right to modification under s 96 will not be flexible but instead will require, in some circumstances, that is, in the case of council's refusal to grant its written consent to modification, an application to another court.
- I accept that I have power to impose a condition requiring the restrictive covenant. In the quite recent decision of NTL Australia v Willoughby Council [2000] NSWLEC 244 delivered by Bignold J on 27 November 2000, his Honour held that there was power in this Court to impose a condition requiring a restrictive covenant to maintain and keep in repair an on site detention infrastructure. The question of the power of the Court to impose a condition requiring a restrictive covenant was not really the subject of debate during the hearing today. I accept that there is power for the Court to do so, if the circumstances are appropriate, and it is to the circumstances that the Court must direct its attention today.