Griffiths v Bradshaw - [2015] QSC 176

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Griffiths v Bradshaw [2015] QSC 176

PARTIES:

PETER GRIFFITHS

(applicant)

v
JAN LAUREL BRADSHAW

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 12194 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2015; 16 April 2015; 17 April 2015

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo J

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) there will be imposed upon the respondent’s property known as Laurel Downs easements in favour of the applicant’s property known as Stuart Downs over the roads described as “Road A” and “Road D” in the Statement of Claim, upon terms and conditions according to the reasons for judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – EASEMENTS – EASEMENTS GENERALLY – CREATION – BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT OR UNDER STATUTE – STATUTORY EASEMENTS – where the applicant asked the court to impose two easements over the respondent’s property pursuant to s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - one easement would be over part of an existing road, the other over a road constructed in late 1991 and used for transporting cattle - where the dispute first arose due to a controversy surrounding the respondent’s use of a bore on their property to supply water to company constructing a gas pipeline – applicant had originally owned both his and the respondent’s properties but subdivided them in 1972 – where the applicant’s property was not landlocked – where the applicant established that it was “reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner” of his property that he should have a statutory right of user in respect of the respondent’s property in order to use the two easements – where there was minimal impact upon the respondent’s enjoyment of her property from the applicant’s use of the roads – where the impact upon the value of the respondent’s property could be redressed by compensation – where the respondent’s refusal to accept the imposition of the easements was unreasonable – where there was an order imposing statutory rights of user in the form of two easements, including conditions and a provision of payment of compensation to the respondent

Land Act 1994 (Qld), s 362
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 180

117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504, cited
Devine v Emu Park Historical Museum Society Inc [2012] QSC 117, cited
Kent Street Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2001] NSWSC 268, considered
Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2006] 1 Qd R 42, applied
Re Seaforth Land Sales Pty Ltd’s Land (No 2) [1977] Qd R 317, cited

COUNSEL:

C Jennings for the applicant

M O Jones for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russells Law for the applicant

Murdoch Lawyers for the respondent

Stuart Downs is a grazing property of more than 8,000 hectares located near Wandoan in central Queensland. It has been held by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Griffiths v Bradshaw

Details

AGLC: Griffiths v Bradshaw [2015] QSC 176
Case: [2015] QSC 176
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffiths v Bradshaw involved a dispute between two property owners in Queensland. The applicant, Griffiths, sought to impose two statutory easements over the respondent's property, Laurel Downs, in order to facilitate access to and from his property, Stuart Downs. The easements sought were over two roads, one of which was an existing road and the other a more recent road used for transporting cattle. The respondent, Bradshaw, opposed the imposition of the easements. The court was tasked with determining whether the easements could be imposed under section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and whether compensation should be paid to the respondent.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the easements were reasonably necessary for the effective use of the applicant's property and whether the imposition of the easements would cause significant detriment to the respondent. The applicant argued that the easements were necessary for the effective use of his property, given that his property was not landlocked and that the impact on the respondent's property would be minimal. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the imposition of the easements would cause significant detriment to her property and that the applicant's refusal to accept her conditions was unreasonable. The court had to weigh the respective rights of the parties and determine whether the imposition of the easements was justified.

The court found that the applicant had established that the easements were reasonably necessary for the effective use of his property. The court noted that the impact on the respondent's property from the applicant's use of the roads was minimal, and that any impact on the value of the respondent's property could be redressed by compensation. The court also found that the respondent's refusal to accept the imposition of the easements was unreasonable. Accordingly, the court imposed the easements over the respondent's property in favour of the applicant's property, subject to certain terms and conditions. The court also ordered that the applicant pay compensation to the respondent.

The court's final orders were that statutory rights of user in the form of two easements be imposed on the respondent's property in favour of the applicant's property, subject to certain terms and conditions. The court also ordered that the applicant pay compensation to the respondent. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the respective rights of the parties and a determination that the imposition of the easements was justified in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) there will be imposed upon the respondent’s property known as Laurel Downs easements in favour of the applicant’s property known as Stuart Downs over the roads described as “Road A” and “Road D” in the Statement of Claim, upon terms and conditions according to the reasons for judgment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Griffiths v Bradshaw [2015] QSC 176
PARTIES:	PETER GRIFFITHS (applicant) v JAN LAUREL BRADSHAW (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 12194 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2015; 16 April 2015; 17 April 2015
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:	Pursuant to s 180 of the *Property Law Act* 1974 (Qld) there will be imposed upon the respondent’s property known as Laurel Downs easements in favour of the applicant’s property known as Stuart Downs over the roads described as “Road A” and “Road D” in the Statement of Claim, upon terms and conditions according to the reasons for judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – EASEMENTS – EASEMENTS GENERALLY – CREATION – BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT OR UNDER STATUTE – STATUTORY EASEMENTS – where the applicant asked the court to impose two easements over the respondent’s property pursuant to s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - one easement would be over part of an existing road, the other over a road constructed in late 1991 and used for transporting cattle - where the dispute first arose due to a controversy surrounding the respondent’s use of a bore on their property to supply water to company constructing a gas pipeline – applicant had originally owned both his and the respondent’s properties but subdivided them in 1972 – where the applicant’s property was not landlocked – where the applicant established that it was “reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner” of his property that he should have a statutory right of user in respect of the respondent’s property in order to use the two easements – where there was minimal impact upon the respondent’s enjoyment of her property from the applicant’s use of the roads – where the impact upon the value of the respondent’s property could be redressed by compensation – where the respondent’s refusal to accept the imposition of the easements was unreasonable – where there was an order imposing statutory rights of user in the form of two easements, including conditions and a provision of payment of compensation to the respondent Land Act 1994 (Qld), s 362 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 180 117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504, cited Devine v Emu Park Historical Museum Society Inc [2012] QSC 117, cited Kent Street Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2001] NSWSC 268, considered Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2006] 1 Qd R 42, applied Re Seaforth Land Sales Pty Ltd’s Land (No 2) [1977] Qd R 317, cited
COUNSEL:	C Jennings for the applicant M O Jones for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Russells Law for the applicant Murdoch Lawyers for the respondent