Eddy Gross v Graham Leslie Greer & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1572

Eddy Gross v Graham Leslie Greer & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1572

The requirements under s 88(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the creation of an easement are not satisfied because the relevant instruments do not clearly indicate that Lot 21 benefits from a right of carriageway over Lot 63; nor does the evidence establish proprietary estoppel, since the Defendants did not induce or encourage the Plaintiff’s reliance and no equitable easement arises.

Parties
Plaintiff: Eddy Gross; First Defendant: Graham Leslie Greer; Second Defendant: Lisa Maree Greer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Easements, Right of Carriageway, Proprietary Estoppel, Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S 88(1), Real Property Act 1900 (nsw) S 51
Real Property Easements Right of Carriageway Proprietary Estoppel Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S 88(1) Real Property Act 1900 (nsw) S 51

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddy Gross

Plaintiff

Graham Leslie Greer

First Defendant

Lisa Maree Greer

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lot 21 is entitled to the benefit of a right of carriageway over Lot 63
  2. 2 Whether there is an enforceable easement pursuant to s 88(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether extrinsic evidence may be relied upon to construe the existence and terms of an easement

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements under s 88(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the creation of an easement are not satisfied because the relevant instruments do not clearly indicate that Lot 21 benefits from a right of carriageway over Lot 63; nor does the evidence establish proprietary estoppel, since the Defendants did not induce or encourage the Plaintiff’s reliance and no equitable easement arises.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs of the proceedings.