=-------

19'75 No. 1'1,10850

~".E T~E Iilli!QU.RJ..~ ... ~;HE CHIE!P \JUSTICE (SIR JOHN "'£0UllQ) a ad

TBEIE HQNQURS l"lR. ;ZU_§_'£:-!E]LB.:\RBEf~ and ~1R. JUSTICE t'lliL§Ql'l,

.... and -

LN. THE l'1A.!.1::Ql of the Restrictive Cov,man-1. corrt;atn0d in Instrument. of Transf"el' No. c\.214172

JUDGi'iiE:\i1'

(Delive1"ed 7th December, 1976)

• YOUNG, C.cT,:

__ _BARBER., ... T.; NELSON; J,: This_ ~ .. '-ras an appeal from a:n order Q£ Gillard 11

made on 25th !"la:cch, 19'?6, dismissing an applicatior:. by "1;;·~::

appeJ.J.ant Stani to modify a res·l;rictive covenant pu:csu::,~rt

is the re_ar portion of an a11ot:ml3nt numbered gL~ in a 9lal":.

of subd:i.v.i.sion, situated in Clayton. Allotment 94 has b·z';"

subdJ.vided into two pcr~cions~ tLa i'ront portion having ,~

frontage to Tur:.1bull Avenue and the real" portion faciw:~

rea;.~ ·:;r L_eumGar StreG·t po.rtion t'.S Lot 2 ~ and -chsy c.1··:.... ~ _,

~~--VF ..

•

•

tho s:.1bject 1and had a right of a.ccess to Leumear Strc·et ~

son1e :::-8 acres subd:ivid.sd into ov0r -150 .allotm2ntBe ~rh~

and on 13th No.y, 1959, his execu,i:;or, one George StalllZ0''

Go~·~9-o:n, became the r·egistel"·ed proprietor of a numbe:~· of

is thu presGnt objec·t;or to th.:i.s application~

September,. 19~13 ~ Geor_gf:J S·Canley Gordon t.:(·ansf'erred ·:,c.

·the primary judgo five o:t· these v:ere still held by (teur.~:;;

On 2L:-tb August, 1956, ·:.::he origi.nal prop:r·:L'"~tc.::"

had transferred Lot. gL} to one Robert ~Fho:r·nton$ On ~:7th

propr:'_otor, erec·ccd a dr;elJ.ingflouse on the front portJ.o .. :

At so~~~e LU1S:f.'Cciticd da:t::a in 1973 the ap;:Jellant .subdJ.vid:~~-:i

. ..11l:.at the trunsf'e:cG.·G '1\'if.:i.ll 2-:.ot at z;~n~ t:].m.e u_se t.~ said. iand i'.o:r ·ct1e purpc-1.:: 3 of any trade or bu~;ine:.:.s and shalJ. nG·;~ erect : ... ~cr Dllov.r t::.t.,:t" "?eY·lni t to be er&cted on tlle 8<).:i.d lHnU h~.:';lreb>.r ..:cransfGTred fJX' a:t-:y pa:ct or ~:>tn:-t~~ ·i;-i:J.er'f:;of' ii::.Yf'(3: th.;·:J.l :,.:-.:;::.: t.Iv:e11:i.nghou.se ~.riti':l. the usu0J. cn}t.bl2i1rj::~i13~­

_wnd. :::c:nc.nn 1'1~.:-;):· ~3- J~':lV!.:.~.t:- '"""~'--'· .-.- ~~~ <z:·· ~)1.3 .;;:.,..:<; .::'i_=-::.:~~2d

c::.t!Y ;~ ·i;Gl;c

1-~

-~

• -~--~...;;..- -~~

~-

_F-.:~

in connection 1.·1i i~h excav~:ri~ing for ·t?::.'2 foundo:C:t.on_ o+· any building ·co be eract.3( the:ce.on, 1;

Th9 cov::::nant is co_nta:tned and repeated in all subseq-:..:t

trau.sfera, includir~g the transfer to the appellant, e.n~l

appears also not1iied as an GDcu:n~~:r~.nce on the appell£E1-::; ;,~,

title -Go the 'l'!hole o:f Lot 9L~ and on each pf the tv:r;

separate titles issued i'ollo~~ving this subdivision into

the two a11otmc:n·.c;;..,

A su1I1mons t,.·Jas issued by the appellant purst.1an-c

sougnt a declaration as provided in 8.:84(2) i::-1 rels.t1on tc

the land comprised in Lo·c 2 anc·

"C5) If the s2.:Lc~ land is eo ai':f'ected. G.r:. order pvrsu2-nt to e,.f:'i;.(l) of the SE\iC. Act uho11y di.schargir;g tha restrictions in tD.e .said. inst:rv.ment of i;r•ar1sf'er o::-­ul ternati yel:; discha:t•gi.ng or modii'y~Lag -Ghe restriction contoil.J.ed ·Ch0rein tn::;oa the ere<~tion of more than o:r.e dwell} r.>g­house 1;vith the u..::.u$.1 outbtt:tld.ings anci,__ fen-cfn.g, !~

ln ""'1 affid.avi t tr, support of· the summons the appellant

be c:>ntent ':l:lth a no~~ificat:Lon ;>ufficient to Pel"mit ·-;n'

•

.-

succinctly sta:i;ad grounds or propositions as follo•:J:::;

"Tha\; the learrH>d judge should on ·ch;;; evidence h~~ve foun(:~ i

(1) that ·the continu<>d existence of' the covei1<mt impeded the reasonable uss of the land, that is edther tl·,::: l1rhole of Lot 94 or the subdiv:i.ci;oo. portion Lo·G 2 thar.eo.t"';

(2) tLat the con·tintH:1d existence of the< covenc::nt \muld not secure any prac­tf.cal bene:fi·~ to the persons entitl'><"2 "<:.) the bene:fi:t of the covemn:t

(3) ·L;<lat the proposed moo.i.:fication woul•1 ·n::>t substantially injcre ,;ne perso;1. o:1tit~ed to the 'benefi-c o:f ti:~z-! :;.> ~stricti on created _by the covanan·t. ~a

Mrc. Goldberg fo.>.'~ ~:he appellant; .submitted 1.h.at on t~1a

evj_dence the 1....:. arned J-u.dge should ha"\Ie been satisfied t!:~c<.:

merely Lot 2. tr:c.~x:'eof, in that .its ex.istence renderGd Let 2

"sterile land";; b,ecause, he said~ no dweJ.lingt1ouse coul,:;, ~"~~·

erected upon .!, t· ·' and that having regard to the si"t:uat:Lon ,;,;r·

impedimer/~ to what W?-s a reasonablG user. On the ot:·~;:;;.'

hand, hs r;~lbmi tted the other residents in the subd:.v5.z,J.o~.

of whow' about fifty were entitled tq the. benef:i.t of th·::

cove:;-:ir.rt, would in no way derj.ve any practical benef:':c

fn: .:i the continuance of the covenant and would not '- ·

.i.njured _j.n al:.y way that could possibly be regarded ec·

substantial in ,the vmrds o:f the sec.-GJ.on. On this c\SyGct

we are of -Ghe opinion that it vwuld. have been d.esiz'a.r_;ls

in the appellant 1 s inte:r:est to have mstde the :.1ec&saEE'>··

axa\TIJ.nation pf :titles ar~d trans:{eJ."'S ·i~o providG. the Cc.rur-t

convtm1ently >'li tn in:formation as to pn;-cisely vJhich lo·~···

holders were the per::,ons entitled to the benefit o;: '.::-,::

.5--

-·

• ,::;..;;.;-7,

OJ.!G-~thj_rd of t;:·1e\ i~otal a12 r,rt::m2.nts ~ HOwever!' ·Chis ~:~:r~ ·~·

ms:tter 11rh1ch the sppGllant could have uri.derta.l-ren:- nx!.d

bec~:-J.use the onus was. on l1.1m ne cannot c::omplain if ·~;b.:i.(~

la.ck cf infor~rnq_tion. a.ffect;ed the :e~~L'.di:cl,t;::.c

Z~Jr .. Goldbcs-rg relied. upon the aff:Ld.::1vi t e.nd -r.:~ .. ~:·

evirl.encG of Iu1r.'l !Vfichael Van Asacb.e, a gentleman qns.1:tii ;;d

in ·i;o\;.rn and TE.t;ional ple.nning and land ·-;,raluatj_c;n ~ J:~:,_·;;..·

opi-,lion of thj_.s. vJ:LTness vias th3.t so far from any .(~e·i:rir!:.-·;-_y:

a~ining from the ~en~cr,tal of' th·::.: rE::strJ.ot~ton ir1'lpOSGd by· t~: :1

cov~;nant~ __ the amenit1es oi: the area would be improved ·c"t.J. .. 01:

by" He ga._ve as r~a_p,·)ns iE support of this opJnion tho..t t:~·. ::.

proposed building v.rould front :~~eumear Street., VJou1d be ( 1')\~

'furnbul1 Avenue ·and Albany Roar.'l, that "the sub~iect le.n:'.

abuts 9nly the rear _sect:i.ons of such d'wellJ.ngs!l aiE:l t:.~~.:;·

.propose4, building v;ou+d be largelJt unnottceable, if 2:: L:.J.l ~·

frortl_ the abutting t1ousing'" _Further, that the con~;;tructic~~.

in brick vene.er of the Pl'Oposed. building t!Ould. adc.l to 'Gi:1·,,

<itJlicni·ty of the area, and 1.~hsrea8 tn Leumear Stree·t th.~;:·;-,

>1?-S an exten'hi,V€ and u>'1Bighi;ly length of' paling i::Cmcc;

for·t.1ing the Tear O'f; ·i~he allotmer:.te, :·ranting r_rurnbull .t1.VG~H.~.J,

the pr-oposed. new building would :cemove one section. c·£ -t: PG.l1ng fence 9-!!d thus impx·o:ve the_ appearance oi· L;::UE!6.3.:'_'

Leumear Str·ee_t, the occupa,1ts '.IOuld use the:c street· b,:t

V{ay of a<;:cess, thus not i.nteri':~rlng \\l'.i. th the trafiic f':~;:· ·

in r:?urn'bull AvsrJ,u.e ~" He dr·ew a"':;t:ention to t\.v·o _ pre•:i: tt ::..

bre~.i._cb.es of cc.\renant. on Lots 149 an.£1 7~~-~

flir, Goldberg submitt;;d that the learned Juc' ;><

hs;;j 'ij.rtually rejected lVfr.,.. ··van :~ssr::.he! s evldence, VfQ,_:;.·::,

!lis Bonor!r sa,i.c'i .. in hj.s judgnenv;_; tf&S that he ivund ti :i,:;

• .,.........,.... __ _

-__ . -:::-·.;.

evid..c£.1ce '\·:c,~~ concerned ·v:i'l::l.L to'il'a.1 planning aspects!' . fH1(~

that :Lt was trow the point of Vit?.\'l of t;.o'Wtl plannin;s t]J.:::r· ...

the ,.r:~ tness had conzide:x.·'ed the matter and forrnG:i h~t;:;

It :Ls of covrse ~cl.,ue that the Court was J:lot

concerned ttith _to\'!n pl~nning_ CQl!.B:l.derations; as has br:::::n

point0d_ out more than once in the authori'l;ies. l

ex&if!p:: .. e, the observations of Adam, J ~ in E!L£i?binsog (19'?~:>

V ~~R. ?78 at p~2f.5<t \!'Je think the learned ~Judge in commen·:.;~.

ing on Mr .. Vs,n Assche.1 s e"'Jidence v1as do.ing no more ·Chhn

rei tera.ting this pr1ncJ .. 9l,::,"'

1Jir. LE,rkins for the objector submitted thnt at

the d.Gte of tbe_ original trans:fe:c· in 1956 the covenant c;e,;"

O'~ pr.:,ctical use to all the allotments in the subdi'JL:ic;,·c

.:Ln thut it ensured the benefit oi en area. where the

population <;l,ensity \·!Ould be llmited to one dwell:ing p;:;x·

allotoent Vl"i't;h consequ~nt } .. imi.ta-G:l.on on the annoyances anc:

irritations that inevitably flow fro,,l a situation o:r.' d0::o.::c.·

popul<:rti.on, He inst~l,}Qed as examples of such detrimen·s

arising_ from dense popl...JJ~at:i.on ;a_ rn:tmber of ei'i:ects!' \.:he s:t:

totaJW o1.' i.\J"hich ·..,_~as of considerable importance<:< ·ro us~) th8

curFEHt jargon, __ ).rlcrea<Jed deasity of 1...,0dulatio:e \'JOU:~d

ai'feq0· the nquali-ty of lifeH in the a;:"ea in t1j.at :tt W(ll.i1c1

be a;:fected by a numoer of' burden£<, trifling in themselY·6G,

such ~ts garbage collection, S1..llle,ge collectior:, t:ca:1"i'i.c

9-ens.tt-y, _ noi$e levol i;.'ro~ ·t:he ac·'.:;i vi ties of inhabitf:.!.r,~.·i;:~r­

:rets .::.nd 1.reh:Lcl_es, cro1.rd gathering~ trater pressure du:r·i:·.1~~:

ctry \'n~atller, antt many s~Lmila.r b1..E·cl.ens.. Tile liL~1itat::.o.-:

i.mposed by tt;te coven?nt ;_.v~s a heD~i'it a:a.d an attracti:;D.

to tL~1i~? 1.·.1!20 purr~hased the lo·r.s :tr:'. 1956 and later::< ~:.ri:Gl!

knoul ::dge of th~; co7ene.nt s and ralyin3; upon j_t e No1:h.i.n,-,.

r-

•

::J.

CJ.(~versely affected, if at all, "to a lil:i.n:Lmal extent, th<x';

test to be applied, :I'h8 benef:,t o:f ·..::he covenant :i.m.E'c::CL

and to p0rmit the benefit of the covenant to be el'Oded

11as a substantial injury -'co o.11 of thorn~

~Che duty of a court j_n determining ·this cla;:~r::~

of a.pplica·Cion is \tell knol·m~ It is .for the applica:nt. ·t.o

esta~n1ish the ex:Lstence of __ the conditions set out in pal'E-J.~~

grap:1s (a), (b) or (c) and 1:f tlle. Court is satisfi.3d thet

the existence of· any one "f the conrhtions is estabJ.:i.<;l-:;::-5,

the :::our·[; hss J?OW_er to discharge or modify the res·t;r:i.c·ci.-:;,-_.

Tbat is to s?,y, i.f ~.n .applicant !ilal-rr::s out a ce.se f·J:C t~-~ ~

as to whether or not i't will e~~el. ... eise_ :rts d1screti:;.n :L1

the applicant's favour: see Re._Coo~~ (1964) V,H., 808 and

the -::ases there cited; ,Re_Rob:i.psoD. {19'72) V.R. 273.

parasraph (b) and accordingly the lem"ned trial Judg:e h2'·'·

to cons:i.dej:"' Vlheth?r the cor..ditiona in ·paragraph (a) os· (c>

bad ':Jeen !Olstablished, No reliecnce was placed on ti:J.e fil'r'.·;:

half of pa:cagraph (a): it was not suggested that tl; ~:e::;

the ;1e.ighbourhood or othe!' circumstances that would :c"encl3::

tbe :::>astriction obso:).ete. But: the ap"[llicant did rely ups:1

eler·L;;pts, viz~ that. t11e cout.tnued. e>::i.stence of the cove;;.~ .. ~<-~~·::-.

land and tf~fl.t it i.vould do so without secu:cing prac·Cic~J~

~-· ',

~-

•

•

.thiE orgunent, the lesrned Judge observed tJ:"l..at H; v!a·;;

necesE!').:cy ·t;o go b<lcl:; to th" purpose or design of tbs·

.subdivid~r in iri'(posing tha covenant; that it 1ll8.S im:;?Cf1s::i.

for· t.he purpose of enE1.1ri.ng that one residence only ,r.r£:B ·t~-:-

de:r~s.:Lty a:f population giving a reas()nably quiet rea.i.cle·i:"::t~~:.:~~

qu:Let exicrcenc·e. He fur·ther observed that to alte:-~ t:·:.z,

The learned Jugge found that h;;nd.ng reza:r.d to tbe pu:-:·pc.:·:o:c

of the subd.i vi dar in impo;:Jing the rest~riction!' to erGct t~:·':.-,

dwellings Qn one allotment vra.s not a reasonable user o:c' -;;t

land,

Xn cons.:tdering v.lhether the restrict:i.on W·:Ju\r:,.;;

the :ceurned Judge Vias in our opinion correct in havL··;_;

rega~~d to the _!!U?:-'pose of the co·\ranant:

"But I :chin~< i·c must toe sho>'IIl., h2 order to satisfy this I"ea.uirement ':. tha. t the _ co:::Yt~J.nt"!.Bnce ~>:~ ·fi:.c unmodi ::'.\.~:c. covenants ru..nd€·:rs, to a real 1· sens~~blo dcgrGe, the l&nd bc:it:1}~ reasonEbly used., havir.g due :-::ogt::..x·d to the situa:Cion ii.; occupies,. tc tht:ao SUY'r:Junding prop-;:~: ... ·(.y !' and to the l;urp~:>se o:f:' the cove:nB.nt.:.:; ·' il

-_:p~-~: _..

•

•

~-

But His Honour did 110t rer;t his decisj.on sola1y upo::1 tJ::.e::.t

cons:Lde:r·ation"" He <.:.rent on to consider the second eJ .. ei11~2"::t:

and cG.me to t:he conclusion., -contrary to .Jche appe).les::t. ~-::

argum,;:,nt ~ th8:t; _the con·tinuance of the re_striction 1rJot.t:LCJ.

took the vie"Ar that the pre.ctical benefits whict. the cor~

tinuance of the rc;;tric-Gion would secure to the per,;c.m,

an. ar'>~s. of li,ght po;;ulation density vii th the g:·."s.a·;;

advantages that go ~:.7ith that cireui11ste.:nce ~ n

To quote the final sentence f;~om a we11-kno•311 passage i21

Hif' a .case is to be ma.?.e out unde~:­this ~Gct:ion.., there m11st be some pr·o·oe1· evideUce tha·::: the r6etrict~torl is no -~onger necessary for 82-::.y J. ... eo...~:o:.~···· uble P"!...!rpose of the peJ;..:=)on ·!:ho :L::::: enjoying· the benaf'i t of it, or tht!.·~; by rGason -of a ch8.ng-e :Ln tl-:.0 ch.arE~c·;~.::.::~ of the prop_er-_t;y or the neighbourhooc1: the restriction is one- "~:ibjwch i;:;, 110 longer to oa s:nior-ceable or· :.:.:?.2 become of no vaJ. '~1 3? '

agree that any al terat.i.on to -;::he desi§:-ll of the orig:Lnul

subdi-.:J:Lsion 1:1ould a:f:feet the quality of living in ·t.ne a:t·(~,s

furthBT applieationr: r .. J:: a ;;:;i:wilar nattu"e ~ resuJ.tj.ng in ?.

•

t5.on of the original p:tan:.1er' s :J..c:.si~_ti "·

it was based on s.;-84-(l) ta) ~ -;_.:e turn to the submiss~Lon u·::-1c~;:

s.84(l)(c).

legislcd;ttre introduced the v;ord usubstantial.LyH in p;-J.!'P~""·

graph (c) ::r thus diffe:;:-oing from the equivalent Engl:l.;::,~-,

statute (o 1fnatter _the addition of tb.e 1.:1crd 0 substa:.1tial~1 •• y

the p~ssj_ble in. jury· to the persons er:ti tled to the ben'2i'5:~

was of the opinion that in the case before him it made ;:10

pose of para,) ( c} 1:1as nto precl.,_:de vexatious oppos.i ti·:n:<.

case:3 where there is :no genuine: .... ess cJ: ... sincerity o:c bo.~:.;:

fide opposition on ar:q r8as:::>nable grounds." Eav:Lng 2's;2L'

to tile purpose of para, (c) it t::ay Vi,~ll be the:t th:~s iE t'"

fa:nc:.ful detriment: .lli"...£.9.2!.'. (

det0rmining undGr par::.1g-raph (a) v:het.her the ccr.:tinHf."·~

existence of the rc::str·:Lction ~;o::ld

tq other p..:;:·rsor~.13:

•

2----

detrimental ei'fect of j_ncreased d.ensi ty ~ This benc·fi .. t

~·jould be erQded by t~e modifica·:~:Lon sought in th.is ;L{!Bt-~;,:e.c:~:-.

appllcat;ions r~sul~;ing in i'u:cther encroachment and i:t.:. ·:.:;;-.~.e

long run . .-the object sought; when the covenant was impose>:',

'•roulcL be cornp:i_etely defeated. /m e:x£"<mination of -~he plcE:.

in rEspect oi' _wt"tich an application such as this cculcl ··:.-:.;

made, supported by the same arguments as were used to

justJfy this ap:Plication~

from the decision of a judge sit:ting as a tribunal of ::~e,<::·:c

has,_ of course, been the Sl.lbject of much ,judicial consi-:Y.e.r-

atim:J., It was said in this case• that thE'lre ,.Ias little, L.

any!!' eonfllct o:f eviden_ce and that nothing -c.urns o:c ·t.:::::::

trial Judge 1 s v.Lew of the demeanour of vri tnesses, and tl.?.a-~.

the Court iB in as good a position as the trial Judge ""

dra\1 inferences :from the admitt«d .facts. and should n:n

~.ldi£• (1955) A,c •. 370 the House of' Lords stated that

there is a distinction bet\v-een .the finding of a spec:Lf.i.c

fact and a fi:ndiilg of' fact \;,·hicb. is really an il1ie:r·en·:;2

d.ravrn from fact.s. s:r;oc:Lf'ically fcu:ad, and ·that .tn tne cass

an in::iependent; opinlon than in the case of the f·ormer ;,·rhi.cf~J

credL;ility or bearing. Comment;~ng on ·chis decisL:>:~:,.

~ 1 Lor0. Simonds in bis i"3)cecb s::.::,:J_d ·i:~~.:~ the s.ppellnte court. ot~.~~:nt :C!Oi: ..;~·:J ~-:~ rGluc·~~nt to for~:n it~ ~....~,m -,,-j.::-' · ("~·:· .L:1fG:r'$r1Ge3 c•i' :f;."!.ct· .. ~ r.lJY:.: t~:3··:~:z:.:1<"" d.cp;s:nding on i_:!lc crzdi.':rilJ.t:~.~·· .IJ.

• .~ l J' -~· I

-~

•

•

~-

be-aring of v.r1tnc-sse.s; but h8 po:.lnts<J.J.~;r subjects the forms:l~ion o:f that opinio;..~; to ·t:;he \\reight to be given to ti::::;; opinion of th.e trial judge as to tb& .t:-r:.i.fe_ronces to -be drallrn"' With this Yie~cl~ Lords Morto;1, Tucker and Somel'veD. gg:r'e~S;-:l ~ ~!

The .i.nferences to be drawn from the facts in this caue

must nevertheless be regarded as findings of iact, jus·;; ".,.,

.infez,~nces dra'i.·tn f.'rom thq f~.cts in a case of nsgligts:cc~

are t:hemselves ___ f:Lndings of fact:

(supr·a) at p.299, :rn the instant case "t:he findings cf

the learned Judge wsre against the part.y upon 'iJhoru l£_y

(191C) 10 S.R. (N.S,\'l.) 126 at p.l31, the F\lll Coul't o:c'

We:vv Sou:i.::h \'!ales observed that Ltpon appeal .from the fj.:n.d5.r:.-;

of a judge sitting ·,:ithou·t a .jury v;here the judge has i'ou::.c:

an issue of fact against the party on \~hom lay the bunlen

of p~oof, the Court 'l'i.ill not reviev; his decision unleS;3

satisfied that it is man1f'es·L:ly wror:.c11·

Having reconsidered for ou:r.·selves th.;:; \Vhole )),

-tl~? .:!:"acts, we are of the opinion that the finding of· t:ilf;

was c.vidence upon ;.·:hich the conclusions he x·eached ct?J::: 1:·s

properly supported, and that l;le has not. .erred eithET 5.n

ignoring '>9~e :fact ·~ha:i; he shoul:i h!lv:e considGred or iJ~ ..

tB:kir..g into account any ir·r.aleve..Jlt o:c J.nadmj.!.?sible mnt0r·:L~ ::.

be dismissedq

,Judg(; had made .some er:cor whl.ch •night !:ave justified a\J.o,·.·-

inadequate notic~. \·.ras_ g:i.ven tn this case pursuant to

s 11 q{+t 3) to p~rsons \·:ho appear to be s·ntt tled to ~the 'be!lS·f:i:~:

;; :: - ~ -

•

~---

s.84. O:rdel-· 54:, Rule 19, :;JrovidBs in subs·tance :fo:.-:> .-.

been nade and not1ces g:tven, Th·z. prot)edure to be foJ.~·.Cf,·.,.

covenant: is set out accurately a:r..d in sufficient det;;,:;.J.

adver~;isements or. other notices order(~d are approprj.a··~c ·;::,

particularly to the paszage :!.n the directJons of i'lar;ts'~

.I_acobs reading as follous:

n1t1.e Ol""der g1:"~.ring dire:ctions l'LLJ.l generally contaia :Ln a schedule a form or notice to be s::.:Lv-en either by post or by advertisc;m1ent or both to the persons appearing to be eutitled to the benefit of the covenant. Ths

- not:Lce wi1J. state that .the applicat.ic~. '"ill be heard in the f:Lrs't instance on a summons returnable b£;•fore a named -.M~~'jter_ at a stated time and ulace:-and that ii.' unopposed :L i:: may be dec}:'.; wi.th then· and there. The_ notice wil:l.. of· cou1 ... s_e also give the u-sual detail.:: of the coVenent and of the r~iodificatiJ:~;.: etc a sought and the name and addre;,;.2, of the applicant's sol:Lcttor from 1f.rl0 further particulars can be obta:Ln·:;;d, ''

the b~nef'it of tne restriction in the present c.3se r.r·~,

all t!:.ose persons ~·!ho a:re .in any way i:nteresteci, \Vhet~~ .. ::;:~ ...

J.:.

in a. daily m~tropoli~~an ps.per nnd a local n€n:tspayer i.-.

i:nsl:tffi_cient n9tic~.:: i'or such pe:csonz. ~ We also regard. i·;:;

a~; necessary tr:a·t the notice should clea.rly .identify ·chs

land af:i:'ected by the application in a way to be readiJ.:;•·

appi'?hended by persons who may be interested, 1'o 1clen~;::.:.:>·

the land by thE-: particulars of title only i.s t:nsatisic.c·(;Ol"::

for the pu~pose of identification,. ·rho order made in thLP~

ca~e ?.f:for·ds a:n illt.lst:ca:t:lon of what we rege.rd as az2

insufficient and ur:>.satisfactory form of notice, I·t

requires an adverti.semept i.n a form set out in a sch~~dt!1G

nchadstone Progresf,H.~ a. local pnpor c:trculating :Ln t~'1J2 8X'.f::~ 4

• 'l'he ord..er also· required e, notice in the same form ·t;o ·~h:"

per.s.onal representative of George Samuel Gordon, the

original transf'.~ror of the land. The order vm.s de:fect:Lvc

ip tv1o respects~ In t~~-e first r>lace, the order shoulQ 1lti~-~·~

required the gj.ving pf notice di.l"ectly by post or othen;i:zo ·;::c

thosr; persons v:ho would appear to be ent1 tled to tile bel1efi't

of_ the restr.iction~ Socondly c the advertisement :Lde:.'ltiZ5~.:..:,-:::·.

ticulars and th...qt it was situated "on the \•!est side •:d:'

• Le;w.ear Str.eet, Clayton," As ti·,e subject land to-as t'::2

rear portio~l of' an allotment which faced into 'l:m"abu:~J.

Avenue::; the descript5.on might be regarded as rnislez~cli.:: s ~

Leumear Street, it is e:.t best an. insnf.f1cient desc.ripi:;i~)_,~.

not re&d:tly identifi9.ble by ·thG personz the advert.iser:e:1t

v.ras :~ntended to not:i.f;;, It is the responsibiJ.ity of ».:·;

appl.icm;t to er.tsurG tha·i;; adequate notice :Ls given ·to t:"'

pe:csons who appe<J.r to· be ex;ti·tJ.od to the bene;:' it of e.'

l"estc.'i.oti.on sov.ght to be modified. or dischs.rged .. o:,"

leas·C to such .of them &S \·lcul_d bz diroctly af~fe~"t(;\.l }.:£

•

•

tckor::. to no_:tj~fY !$UCh :per:::o:1s the Court is very likely

t.o rsfuse the e.pplica.ti )11 . .}

For the rea_pons stated earl:ter, the appeEtl