Bland v Levi [2000] NSWSC 161

Bland v Levi [2000] NSWSC 161

The plaintiffs are not entitled to require full details of the works from the dominant owner, nor does the dominant owner require the servient owner's approval for reconstruction works on the driveway; interim relief restraining the works is therefore declined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Interim relief declined; costs to the plaintiffs; suit stood over for mention; further costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['easements' 'ancillary Rights' 'driveway Reconstruction' 'right to Reconstruct' 'servient and Dominant Tenement Rights']
['real Property'] ['easements' 'ancillary Rights' 'driveway Reconstruction' 'right to Reconstruct' 'servient and Dominant Tenement Rights']

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 Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the dominant owner of a right of way must seek the servient owner's approval or provide information regarding reconstruction works on the right of way" 'Whether interim relief (injunction) should be granted restraining construction works affecting a shared driveway']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs are not entitled to require full details of the works from the dominant owner, nor does the dominant owner require the servient owner's approval for reconstruction works on the driveway; interim relief restraining the works is therefore declined.

Court Disposition

Interim relief declined; costs to the plaintiffs; suit stood over for mention; further costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Interim injunctive relief restraining works is declined.' 'Plaintiffs to pay the costs up to the date of judgment.' 'Suit stood over for mention before the Registrar on 17 April 2000 at 9:30 am.' 'Liberty for any party to restore the matter to the list on three days’ notice at their own risk as to costs.'...