This article will discuss the fourth and last element that must be satisfied for a court to create an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). This element requires the court to be satisfied that the applicant has made all reasonable attempts to obtain an easement or one having a similar effect but has been unsuccessful.

This element was incorporated into s 88K to encourage applicants to initiate negotiations and treat s 88K as a last resort (New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 4 December 1995, 4000 (Douglas Moppett).

In assessing reasonableness, the Court must consider the likelihood that a consensus would be reached if further steps had been taken. There is a suggestion that the requirement is for the applicant to have negotiated until it is extremely unlikely that consensus will be reached in the foreseeable future (Coles Myer New South Wales Ltd v Dymocks Book Arcade Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 14). In Bilton v Ligdas (2016) 18 BPR 36, this element was found to be satisfied when the servient tenement rejected an offer that was double the maximum market value as assessed by experts.

The Applicant does not have to show that they offered an amount that was later considered fair compensation by the Court, as long as they showed a willingness to negotiate and respond to the other party reasonably (Katakouzinos v Roufir Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1045, [75]

In considering whether this requirement has been met, the Court may consider all conduct leading up to the making of the order (Studholme v Rawson [2020] NSWCA 76, [83]). As such, in Govindan-Lee v Sawkins (2016) 18 BPR 35,883, this was satisfied by the Applicant making an offer of $10,000 following the commencement of proceedings. This suggests that an applicant may satisfy this without negotiating outside of Court, even though this does not seem consistent with the Parliament’s intention for the element.

There are not many cases where the respondent uses this section to impede the imposition of an easement. One of the few examples is PD Consultants Pty Ltd v Childs [2004] NSWSC 1076, which ended with Brownie AJ adjourning the matter, suggesting that they try to reach some agreement and put the dispute behind them.

However, courts will generally not impose an easement where the respondent prefers a license to achieve the same thing (Vella v Nergl Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1405, [166] (Slattery J). This relates to their underlying discretion as to whether they grant an easement, even if all the requirements have been satisfied.

This article will discuss the third element that must be satisfied for a court to create an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). This element requires the court to be satisfied that the owner of servient land can be adequately compensated for any loss or other disadvantage that would arise from the imposition of the easement.

The compensation amount is determined by reference to the loss incurred by the servient tenement and not the benefit derived by the dominant tenement (Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd (2010) 171 LEGRA 286). It has been noted that the Court should not err on the side of generosity and that although the applicant may generate profit from the development in connection with which the easement is sought, this does not justify any departure from the basic principles of compensation discussed below (Mitchell v Boutagy (2001) 118 LGERA 249, [31]).

There is a requirement for a causal relationship between the loss or disadvantage for which the claim is made and the imposition of the easement (Mitchell v Boutagy (2001) 118 LEGRA 249, [26]).

Compensation will cover the diminished market value of the affected land and associated costs, as well as any loss arising from insecurity or loss of amenities such as the loss of peace (Wengarin Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council (1999) 9 BPR 16, 985; Acorp Developments Pty Ltd v HWR Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 68, [153]). It will also cover compensation for loss of the proprietary rights taken by the easement and for the disturbance effected by carrying out the initial work and subsequent repair and maintenance (Tregoyd Gardens Pty Ltd v Jervis (1997) 8 BPR 15, 845). An offset for any compensating advantages is allowed, so that the final amount is a reflection of the real detriment suffered (Wengarin Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [1999] NSWSC 485, [26]).

The onus of proof in a case for compensation is borne by the applicant (Mitchell v Boutagy (2001) 118 LGERA 249, [34]). This is part of their duty to satisfy the Court that the person can be adequately compensated (117 York St Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504, 516).

Legal costs are usually payable by the applicant unless the servient tenement’s conduct warrants an adverse costs order. Behaviour that might warrant that includes presenting false evidence or manufacturing a case (Bilton v Ligdas (206) 18 CBPR 36, 379) but does not include refusing a reasonable offer (Owners Strata Plan No 13635 v Ryan [2006] NSWSC 342, [32]).

Generally, if the court cannot make a determination as to the compensation payable at the time the order is made, it has no power to grant the easement (Studholme v Rawson [2020] NSWCA 76, [46]). However, in some cases, the Court may determine that compensation is not payable because of special circumstances (Property Partnerships Pacific Pty Ltd v Owners of Strata Plan 58482 [2006] NSWLEC 709, [11]).

This article will discuss the second element that must be satisfied for a court to create an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), which is that the proposed use of the dominant land is not inconsistent with the public interest. This element represents a balancing of competing private interests as well as the promotion of the public interest (Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2, [95]).

In Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd v Tanlane Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445, the court took into account the fact that ranting the easement would frustrate the Development Control Plan and significantly diminish the prospect of the Tanlane land, as a point that it may be inconsistent with the public interest.

It has been noted that there are special public interest considerations in granting an easement over environmentally sensitive land (Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd v Tanlane Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445, [202]). This is equally true of community land. Bryson J in Marshall v The Council of the City of Wollongong [2000] NSWSC 137, [26] remarked that it would be rare that community land used in any active way could be subjected to an easement without inconsistency with the public interest in achieving the purposes for which the community land was held.

This article will discuss the first element that must be satisfied for a court to create an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), which is that the easement is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of the dominant land.

This element does not require that there be absolute necessity, with Barret J observing in Kent Street Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2001] NSWSC 268, [12] that this does not ‘direct attention to what is indispensable.’ It also does not require the applicant to show that the easement is necessary to achieve the highest and best use of the land (Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd v Tanlane Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445, [154]-[155]). The element may be satisfied by showing that the proposed development is appropriate to the area and is an economically rational use of the land.

To meet the ‘reasonably necessary’ standard, a court needs to be satisfied that the proposed use is reasonable compared with other possible alternatives. The court must further be satisfied that use of the land with the easement is substantially preferable to use without it, as clearly outlined by Hodgson CJ in 117 York St Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504, 508-9. Therefore, the threshold is above something that is simply convenient but it is less than absolute necessity – (D & D Corak Investments Pty Ltd v Yiasemides [2006] NSWSC 1419, [13] (Young J)). As such, an easement can be granted even if the land could theoretically be effectively used and developed without it (117 York St Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504).

The applicant bears the onus of showing reasonable necessity and adducing evidence about alternatives. If they fail to do so, the Court may not be able to accept their primary submission that an easement is reasonably necessary (Govindan-Lee v Sawkins (206) 18 BPR 35, 3883, [48]-[50]).

Reasonable necessity must be measured having regard to the burden the easement would impose on the servient land. As Hodgson CJ found in Katakouzinos v Roufir Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1045, [42], the greater the burden the stronger the case needed to justify a finding of reasonable necessity. The court must bear in mind the confiscatory nature of an easement and that property rights are valuable rights that the court should not lightly interfere with (Woodland v Manly Municipal Council [2003] NSWSC 392, [19]).

For example, the element was not made out in Aussie Skips Recycling Pty Ltd v Strathfield MC [2020] NSWCA 292, where the Court found that the proposed easement was incompatible with the continued beneficial ownership of the servient tenement as it would enclose the area constituting 68% of the Council’s land. It was therefore incapable of comprising an easement.

In assessing whether the easement is reasonably necessary, the court must make a value judgement with no exercise of discretion (Woodland v Manly Municipal Council [2003] NSWSC 392, [10]). However, once this element is satisfied, if the others are as well, then the Court will have the discretion on whether or not to grant the easement.

Has a neighbour approached you with a request that you agree to grant an easement, perhaps to run drainage through or drive over, over your land? If so, it is essential that know what your rights are, now and into the future.

Your $$$$$$ compensation

In most instances, you have right to be compensated for an easement imposed over your land. The compensation amount is usually either agreed with party requesting the easement or ordered by the Court. The amount will vary depending on several things which may include the needs of the party requesting the easement, the amount of an expert’s valuation of the impact of the easement, the nature of the easement granted and your or your solicitor’s negotiation skills.

Your right to compensation is reflected by section 88K (4) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 which provides that if the Court makes an order imposing an easement over land that it also provide in the order an amount for compensation to the land owner unless there may be special circumstances.

Your legal costs paid

It is very important to seek legal advice regarding a potential easement over your land and ensure your rights are properly protected during the process to agree to grant the easement, the construction of the easement and into the future.

It is common practice for developers (or people requesting the easement) to agree to pay your legal fees.  We have a template below to request this.

If you agree to grant the easement without the need for Court proceedings, we recommend you enter into a Deed with the neighbour that includes a provision that all your legal costs of and associated with the granting of the easement are paid by the neighbour. This ensures your neighbour pays your legal costs and you are not out of pocket.

If the dispute ends up in Court, perhaps because the amount of compensation cannot be agreed or the neighbour has not been reasonable, section 88K (5) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 provides that the costs of the proceedings are payable by the applicant, subject to any order of the Court to the contrary.

Ongoing maintenance of the easement

Many easements require ongoing maintenance either on a regular basis, or perhaps in 10 years when the piping under the ground may need fixing. Provision for ongoing maintenance is best included in the Transfer Granting Easement, which is the document that provides permission from a land owner for an easement to be created over their land.

We recommend you enter into a Deed with the neighbour which includes a provision that ensures either the current owner or future owners of the land benefited by the easement keep the easement in good repair and working order. This type of provision may save you many thousands of dollars down the track.

Protection from any liability

There will often be construction works associated with the easement and it is important you are protected should there be an accident such as a person being hit by a falling fence or a child falling into a hole on your land.

We recommend you enter into a Deed with the neighbour which includes a provision that ensures you are indemnified against any liability, loss, claim or proceeding arising out of the construction works associated with the easement.

What to do next?

No matter at what stage of the granting an easement process you may be, you will benefit from obtaining legal advice to assist you in achieving the maximum amount of compensation payable and ensuring your rights are properly protected now and into the future.

Feel free to ask us any question you may have and we look forward to helping you – 02 7200 8200 or adam@adam-ahmed-8613

In real property terms, buying off the plan mean signing a contract to purchase a property, whether it is an apartment, townhouse or a house and land before it is built.  Buyers would pay a 10% deposit upfront and can be left waiting for years for the project to be completed and settled.  On top […]

In New South Wales the Conveyancing Act 1919 (“the Act”) is the legislation which expresses and regulates the essential law relating generally to land in NSW. Other legislation, such as The Real Property Act 1900 and the acts relating to Strata Titles and Crown Lands, cover specific kinds of title. This article will explain the […]

Under The Torrens Title system of land registration, the Registered Proprietor of a parcel of land is the absolute owner of that land. His or her title is indefeasible, and is protected absolutely against claims or other interests which are not registered on the title to that land. The system developed as a means of […]

We all, in a particular context, at times use words and phrases about which we are sure there is a clear and unambiguous meaning, and it can come as a surprise when another person provides a different meaning for those same words and phrases in the same context. The Courts are often asked to interpret […]

If you’ve received a letter in the mail saying that someone wants to build a pipe through your land or needs an easement from you or they will take you to Court, you have every right to be baffled.  You’re probably thinking a lot of different things which we wouldn’t want to necessarily place here […]