Bradshaw v Griffiths

In the case of Bradshaw v Griffiths, Mrs Bradshaw appealed against the orders made in the trial judge's decision that granted Mr Griffiths statutory rights of user over two roads, Roads A and D, on her property Laurel Downs. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in finding that both roads were reasonably necessary for the effective use of Mr Griffiths' property Stuart Downs, and whether Mrs Bradshaw's refusal to grant the easements was unreasonable. The court was also required to determine whether any easement should have been granted at all and if only one easement should have been granted, which one it should be.

The court found that while both Roads A and D were critical to the use of Stuart Downs as a grazing property, the trial judge's conclusion that both roads were reasonably necessary was not erroneous. However, the court held that the compensation for the easement over Road A should be $25,000, not the $35,000 determined by the trial judge. The court found that the impact of the easements on Mrs Bradshaw was minimal, and her refusal to grant the easements was unreasonable.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the orders that granted a statutory right of user in respect of Road D, and ordered compensation in the sum of $25,000. The parties were given the opportunity to submit a revised order in accordance with these reasons and to make submissions on the costs of the appeal.

The ratio of the decision is that the trial judge's findings as to the importance of Roads A and D, and the comparison with the proposed road, were correct. The court held that both Roads A and D are critical to the use of Stuart Downs as a grazing property, and the proposed road could be used, but it would be inferior and more costly. The court also found that the impacts of the statutory rights of user on Mrs Bradshaw would be minimal.