Crawley v Baxter (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 648

Crawley v Baxter (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 648

The easement sought is reasonably necessary for the effective use of Mr Crawley’s land because it is landlocked with no other viable or legal means of vehicle access, and alternative access options over public or conservation land (Craddocks Creek Trail, Z to M Track, or Copeland Commons Track) are not practical, legal, or available due to physical, regulatory and environmental barriers. All reasonable attempts to negotiate an easement with the defendant had failed. The use of the benefited land is not contrary to the public interest and the defendant can be adequately compensated. The court exercised its discretion to grant the easement as sought over the New Track Route and part of the...

Parties
Plaintiff: Edwin Crawley; Defendant: John Baxter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Easement Under S 88 K Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Final Judgment After Hearing With Leave for Further Evidence and Submissions
Outcome
Application for easement granted. Orders made for imposition of easement and compensation to defendant. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Easements, Imposition of Easement Under S 88 K Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), Access to Landlocked Land, Reasonable Necessity, Compensation for Imposition of Easement
Equity Land Law Easements Imposition of Easement Under S 88 K Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) Access to Landlocked Land Reasonable Necessity Compensation for Imposition of Easement

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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Crawley

Plaintiff

John Baxter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Easement Under S 88 K Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Final Judgment After Hearing With Leave for Further Evidence and Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an easement for a right of carriageway over defendant's land should be imposed under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the easement is reasonably necessary for effective use of plaintiff's land
  3. 3 Whether all reasonable attempts to obtain an easement have been made

Ratio Decidendi

The easement sought is reasonably necessary for the effective use of Mr Crawley’s land because it is landlocked with no other viable or legal means of vehicle access, and alternative access options over public or conservation land (Craddocks Creek Trail, Z to M Track, or Copeland Commons Track) are not practical, legal, or available due to physical, regulatory and environmental barriers. All reasonable attempts to negotiate an easement with the defendant had failed. The use of the benefited land is not contrary to the public interest and the defendant can be adequately compensated. The court exercised its discretion to grant the easement as sought over the New Track Route and part of the...

Court Disposition

Application for easement granted. Orders made for imposition of easement and compensation to defendant. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • Order under s 88K(1) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) imposing an easement for a right of carriageway over part of defendant's land (Lot 1 in DP 1182854) for benefit of plaintiff’s land (Lots 89 and 99 in DP 753147), per plans annexed.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant compensation of $3,500 within 7 days of receiving payment directions (s 88K(4)).