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  NSWSC 1045, 
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  NSWCA 76, ). 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  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  NSWSC 1405,  (Slattery J). This relates to their underlying discretion as to whether they grant an easement, even if all the requirements have been satisfied.