Castle v Achdjian

The matter of Castle v Achdjian involved a dispute over the extinguishment of an easement of carriageway between the parties. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Castle, sought to extinguish the right of carriageway over the defendant's property, Achdjian, arguing that the easement was obsolete, impeded the reasonable use of the servient tenement, or had been abandoned. The right of carriageway had never been used as a means of vehicular access to the dominant tenement, and several obstructions had been erected on the right of carriageway. Evidence suggested that the right of carriageway had historically only been used as a footway. The plaintiff argued that the right of carriageway was obsolete in circumstances where council approval for the construction of a driveway would be very unlikely to be given and that it was inconsistent with the reasonable use of the servient tenement. The plaintiff also argued that the acts or omissions of previous dominant owners evidenced an intention to abandon the right of carriageway in whole or in part.

The court had to determine whether the right of carriageway was obsolete, inconsistent with the reasonable use of the servient tenement, or abandoned in whole or in part. The court also had to consider whether the dominant owners would suffer a substantial injury if the right of carriageway were extinguished. The court found that the right of carriageway was not obsolete, inconsistent with the reasonable use of the servient tenement, or abandoned in whole or in part. The court found further that the dominant owners would suffer a substantial injury if the right of carriageway were extinguished. The court ordered the defendants to remove the obstructions placed on the right of carriageway without the dominant owners' assent.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and applicable law. The court found that the right of carriageway was not obsolete, as the plaintiff had not demonstrated that it was impossible to use the right of carriageway for its intended purpose. The court found further that the right of carriageway was not inconsistent with the reasonable use of the servient tenement, as the defendants had not demonstrated that the right of carriageway impeded their ability to use their property in a reasonable way. The court found further that the right of carriageway had not been abandoned in whole or in part, as there was no evidence of an intention to abandon the right of carriageway. The court found finally that the dominant owners would suffer a substantial injury if the right of carriageway were extinguished, as they would be unable to access their property by foot or vehicle. The court ordered the defendants to remove the obstructions placed on the right of carriageway without the dominant owners' assent.