Anderson v City of Stonnington (No 2)

In Anderson v City of Stonnington (No 2), the plaintiffs sought a declaration that a laneway on their property was not a road. The City of Stonnington argued that the laneway constituted a road under the Local Government Act 1989, and thus, the plaintiffs were required to maintain it. The matter came before the County Court of Victoria, which had previously reserved judgment on the trial. During this period, the plaintiffs erected a fence across the laneway, prompting the council to seek an order for its removal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the laneway was a road under the Act and, if so, whether the plaintiffs' actions in erecting a fence constituted an obstruction of the road. The court was also required to determine whether the council's rejection of the plaintiffs' settlement offer under Calderbank was unreasonable. The City of Stonnington argued that the laneway's characteristics and its continuous maintenance by the council rendered it a road. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that the laneway did not meet the statutory definition of a road. The court considered the evidence presented, including expert testimony on the nature of the laneway and its usage.

The County Court found that the laneway was indeed a road under the Local Government Act 1989. The court held that the laneway's physical characteristics, including its width, length, and maintenance, supported this conclusion. The plaintiffs' erection of a fence across the laneway constituted an obstruction of the road, and the council's summons to have it removed was a natural consequence of the court's judgment. Regarding the Calderbank offer, the court determined that the council's rejection of the plaintiffs' offer was not unreasonable. The court found that the plaintiffs' offer did not adequately address the council's concerns and that the council's position was reasonable given the circumstances. The plaintiffs were ordered to remove the fence and maintain the laneway as a road. The council's costs of the proceeding were awarded against the plaintiffs.