who should be making an application under any of the paragraphs of s84(1). It seems to me that in order to succeed under paragraph (c) the applicant cannot establish his case by merely proving that there will be no appreciable injury or depreciation in value of the property to which the covenant is annexed: see Re Parimax (SA) Pty Ltd, [1956] SR (NSW) 130. If it were proved by evidence that the purpose of the covenant was not to preserve the value of the property, proof of value may even become irrelevant: see Heaton v Loblay (1960) 77 WN (NSW) 140, at p. 142. It should be noted that in paragraph (c) the emphasis is on the injury suffered by the persons entitled to the benefit. From the nature of the proprietary right arising from the restrictive covenant clearly the injury must occur in relation to the person's enjoyment of his property. Such injury can only be properly assessed by a comparison between the benefits intended to be conferred and actually conferred by the covenant initially on the persons entitled thereto and the resultant benefits, if any, remaining to such persons after the covenant has been modified. If from the evidence it appears that the difference between the two will not be substantial, then the applicant will have established a [811] case for the exercise of the Court's discretion under paragraph (c). In order to make this comparison it is proposed to consider what benefits the covenant over the subject land may have conferred upon the persons entitled thereto, and then to assess whether the modification of such covenant would or would not substantially diminish the benefits so discovered. In order to assess the benefits to be derived from the restrictive covenant to the persons entitled thereto, I believe it is first necessary to consider the outstanding features of the subdivision. The lodged plan shows that it was a subdivision of two existing lots 11 and 12 on LP 4151. Although these lots were practically rectangular, running true north of Belmore Road, the subdivision No. 8431 of the two lots is not a plain grid. The private streets thereon are broken and do not run due north, south, east or west, but are in various directions. The consequence is that the lots are orientated in all directions of the compass and the streets also run in various directions. The plan does not show the contours of the land, but from the direction of the drainage reserve and the various drainage easements the land apparently falls from south of east to north of west. This may influence the direction and course of the private streets and the aspect of the allotments fronting those streets. The consequences, however, of the subdivision are: first, that there is a very little sameness in the dimensions, regularity or orientation of the allotments; secondly, there are dotted throughout the subdivision comparatively large allotments. These generally are to be found at street corners and abutting on the main drainage reserves where rectangular allotments could not be easily surveyed, and the areas remaining from the subdivision were set aside as large allotments in convenient positions. There is no standard allotment, but actually there are no small allotments. In so far as any standard may have been established, the allotment appears to be approximately 60 feet by 160 feet. Lot 84 has a broken frontage of 124 feet 11 inches to Loma Linda Grove. It only has 49 feet 8 inches at the rear. It is not rectangular but is one of those allotments abutting the main drainage reserve, which runs slightly south of east to slightly north of west right across the subdivision at a width of approximately 22 feet. It seems to me that the object of the subdivider in