Bryant v Crompton [2024] NSWSC 238

Bryant v Crompton [2024] NSWSC 238

Option A is 'reasonably necessary' for access to the plaintiff's landlocked lot within the meaning of s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), because alternative access via Option C is disproportionately costly, impractical and environmentally burdensome, and the impact on the servient tenement can be adequately managed by terms of the easement and compensation.

Parties
Plaintiff: Christopher John Bryant; First Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Crompton; Second Defendant: Keryn Michelle Denichilo-Harrison; Third Defendant: Registrar-General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Decision After Hearing and Further Submissions
Outcome
Easement over Option A granted, subject to determination of compensation, terms, and registration of associated access over Lot 21; further directions listed.
Legal Topics
Easements, Court Ordered Easements, Reasonable Necessity, Right of Carriageway, Access to Landlocked Land
Property Law Easements Court Ordered Easements Reasonable Necessity Right of Carriageway Access to Landlocked Land

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Bryant

Plaintiff

Nicholas Anthony Crompton

First Defendant

Keryn Michelle Denichilo-Harrison

Second Defendant

Registrar-General

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Decision After Hearing and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an easement for a right of carriageway over the defendants' land (Option A) is 'reasonably necessary' under s 88K(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) in light of an alternative access (Option C)
  2. 2 Impacts of the proposed easement on the servient land
  3. 3 Comparative costs and practicality of proposed and alternative access routes

Ratio Decidendi

Option A is 'reasonably necessary' for access to the plaintiff's landlocked lot within the meaning of s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), because alternative access via Option C is disproportionately costly, impractical and environmentally burdensome, and the impact on the servient tenement can be adequately managed by terms of the easement and compensation.

Court Disposition

Easement over Option A granted, subject to determination of compensation, terms, and registration of associated access over Lot 21; further directions listed.

Orders

  • Parties to confer to appoint a joint expert valuer on compensation and make timetabling orders for s 88K compensation, easement terms, and costs.
  • Matter listed for further directions on 5 April 2024 in the Real Property List.