Hill v Wirepa [2024] NSWDC 373

Hill v Wirepa [2024] NSWDC 373

The court was satisfied that Ms Wirepa, without the Hills’ consent, repeatedly entered and used their property for purposes beyond permitted access, left goods, conducted business, permitted dogs to roam, and invited others onto the land, constituting actionable trespasses. Permanent injunctive orders were appropriate as Ms Wirepa was likely to continue such conduct. A special costs order was justified due to her unreasonable rejection of a Calderbank settlement offer which mirrored the relief ultimately ordered.

Parties
First Cross Claimant: Christopher James Hill; Second Cross Claimant: David Graham Hill; Cross Defendant: Silvana Liliana Wirepa
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing (ex Parte Against Cross Defendant)
Outcome
Cross-claim upheld; permanent injunction and special costs order granted against Silvana Wirepa
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Injunctions, Costs — Calderbank Offers/party/party and Indemnity Costs
Torts Equity Civil Procedure Trespass to Land Injunctions Costs — Calderbank Offers/party/party and Indemnity Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher James Hill

First Cross Claimant

David Graham Hill

Second Cross Claimant

Silvana Liliana Wirepa

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing (ex Parte Against Cross Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Silvana Wirepa committed actionable trespasses on the Hills’ property
  2. 2 Whether injunctive relief should be granted restraining further trespasses by Ms Wirepa
  3. 3 Whether special costs orders (indemnity basis after Calderbank offer) are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied that Ms Wirepa, without the Hills’ consent, repeatedly entered and used their property for purposes beyond permitted access, left goods, conducted business, permitted dogs to roam, and invited others onto the land, constituting actionable trespasses. Permanent injunctive orders were appropriate as Ms Wirepa was likely to continue such conduct. A special costs order was justified due to her unreasonable rejection of a Calderbank settlement offer which mirrored the relief ultimately ordered.

Court Disposition

Cross-claim upheld; permanent injunction and special costs order granted against Silvana Wirepa

Orders

  • Silvana Wirepa restrained, by herself, her servants, agents, visitors or contractors, from trespassing on the property owned by Christopher and David Hill as specified, including: (a) entering or using the property other than for the purpose of passage to and from the public road; (b) leaving anything on the...
  • Silvana Wirepa to pay the Hills' costs of the cross-claim up to and including 9 May 2024 on the ordinary basis, and all costs incurred after 9 May 2024, in preparation for and appearing at the hearing on 21 August 2024, on an indemnity basis.