Hopkins v Quinn [2017] NSWLEC 31

Hopkins v Quinn [2017] NSWLEC 31

Leave to reopen was refused as to the drainage corridor due to absence of merit; granted for three boundary elements but resulted in confirmation of principal decision for the shotcrete wall easement and minor variations to the widths and valuation of the garden bed and cabana easements. Triple-value compensation applied only where relevant, discretionary loading for the cabana vent pipe not applied due to its minor intrusion.

Parties
Applicant: John James Hopkins; Respondent: David Quinn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Reopen Judgment in Boundary Dispute Proceedings / Post Substantive Decision; Consideration of Application to Reopen and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Application to reopen refused as to drainage corridor, granted for garden bed, cabana, and shotcrete wall elements; principal decision largely confirmed with minor variations; parties directed to settle orders reflecting revised outcomes; costs reserved if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Encroachment, Easements, Compensation, Development Consent, Declaratory Relief, Injunctions
Property Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Encroachment Easements Compensation Development Consent Declaratory Relief +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John James Hopkins

Applicant

David Quinn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Reopen Judgment in Boundary Dispute Proceedings / Post Substantive Decision; Consideration of Application to Reopen and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to reopen determination of boundary issues
  2. 2 Extent of easement required due to encroachment
  3. 3 Appropriate width and valuation of relevant easements

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reopen was refused as to the drainage corridor due to absence of merit; granted for three boundary elements but resulted in confirmation of principal decision for the shotcrete wall easement and minor variations to the widths and valuation of the garden bed and cabana easements. Triple-value compensation applied only where relevant, discretionary loading for the cabana vent pipe not applied due to its minor intrusion.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen refused as to drainage corridor, granted for garden bed, cabana, and shotcrete wall elements; principal decision largely confirmed with minor variations; parties directed to settle orders reflecting revised outcomes; costs reserved if not agreed.

Orders

  • Principal decision confirmed as to the shotcrete wall easement element, including width and triple-value compensation.
  • Easement widths for garden bed and cabana to be determined by reference to December 2016 survey; compensation on single-value basis for these elements.