Mansfield v Binder

Case [2025] QSC 215

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mansfield v Binder [2025] QSC 215

PARTIES:

JON DOUGLAS MANSFIELD and
SHIKIRRI JANE MANSFIELD

(Applicants)

v
GERARD BINDER

(First Respondent)
and
MSF SUGAR PTY LTD ACN 009 658 708

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC 445 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

29 and 30 May 2025

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   The application is granted in part, to the extent that the court is satisfied easements should be imposed upon the first respondent’s lot 1 and the second respondent’s rail corridor, in the form described in my reasons as the ‘in-between option’.

2.   The applicants will prepare, file and serve a survey plan of an easement meeting the qualities of the form of easement referred to in order 1.

3.   The respondent will permit the entry and movement of the surveyor, the applicant and their agents upon lot 1 for the purposes of the surveyor preparing, under instruction, the survey plan referred to in order 2.

4.   The survey plan will include the total square metre measurement of that part of lot 1 occupied by the surveyed easement.

5.   The compensation payable by the applicant to the first respondent, as the owner of lot 1, on the imposition of the easement referred to in order 1, will be the number of square metres referred to in order 4 multiplied by $20.83.

6.   The applicant is to file and serve evidence that Mrs Mansfield has obtained the Crown’s consent to her constructing and using a driveway across the road reserve from its boundary with lot 1, near lot 1’s south-western corner, through to its boundary with lot 3.

7.   On the completion of the aforementioned requirements or in the event a material obstacle to their completion arises, the applicant will request the Registry to relist the application for continued hearing. 

8.   In relisting the application, the Registry will first consult the parties to ascertain their estimate of the continued hearing’s likely duration and allocate and notify a listing accordingly.

9.   Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days’ notice in writing.

10.  Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – EASEMENTS – EASEMENTS GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – ACCESS EASEMENT – where an easement is sought over the respondents’ land in order for the applicant to access their property – where there are four easement options as potential solutions – whether some form of easement is reasonably necessary – whether one easement option is the most reasonable solution for that necessity

Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) s 180

117 York St Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan no 16123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504
Bradshaw v Griffiths[2016] QCA 20

Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso[2005] QSC 112

COUNSEL:

C Ryall for applicants

J Eylander for first respondent

SOLICITORS:

Marino Lawyers for applicants

WGC Lawyers for first respondent

J Edgerton solicitor of MSF Sugar Pty Ltd

Continue reading Mansfield v Binder

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mansfield v Binder [2025] QSC 215
Case
[2025] QSC 215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mansfield v Binder, the applicants sought to impose an easement over the respondents' property to gain access to their own land. Four potential easement options were presented, and the court had to determine whether an easement was reasonably necessary and, if so, which option was the most reasonable solution. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issues were whether an easement was necessary to provide access to the applicants' property and, if so, which of the four proposed easement options was the most reasonable solution to meet that necessity.

The court concluded that an easement was reasonably necessary and opted for the 'in-between option' as the most reasonable solution. This conclusion was made with the assumption that the Crown would likely consent to the Mansfields building and using a driveway over the road reserve. The court found that the market value approach was the most appropriate method to determine just compensation for the imposition of the easement. The court considered arguments from previous cases, such as Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso, to support its decision. The court noted that without a survey plan or set of measurements adequately describing the path of the easement, it was prudent to make an order in general terms and allow the parties an opportunity to be further heard as to the final form of orders once a survey was completed.

The court made several orders, including granting the application in part to impose an easement over the respondents' property in the form described as the 'in-between option'. The applicants were required to prepare, file, and serve a survey plan of the easement. The respondents had to permit the entry and movement of the surveyor, the applicants, and their agents on the property for the survey. The compensation payable by the applicants to the first respondent was determined based on the total square metre measurement of the easement on lot 1, multiplied by a set rate. The applicants were also required to provide evidence of obtaining the Crown's consent for constructing and using a driveway across the road reserve. If the applicants completed the required tasks or faced a material obstacle to their completion, they had to request the Registry to relist the application for a continued hearing. The court reserved costs for a later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is granted in part, to the extent that the court is satisfied easements should be imposed upon the first respondent’s lot 1 and the second respondent’s rail corridor, in the form described in my reasons as the ‘in-between option’.

2. The applicants will prepare, file and serve a survey plan of an easement meeting the qualities of the form of easement referred to in order 1.

3. The respondent will permit the entry and movement of the surveyor, the applicant and their agents upon lot 1 for the purposes of the surveyor preparing, under instruction, the survey plan referred to in order 2.

4. The survey plan will include the total square metre measurement of that part of lot 1 occupied by the surveyed easement.

5. The compensation payable by the applicant to the first respondent, as the owner of lot 1, on the imposition of the easement referred to in order 1, will be the number of square metres referred to in order 4 multiplied by $20.83.

6. The applicant is to file and serve evidence that Mrs Mansfield has obtained the Crown’s consent to her constructing and using a driveway across the road reserve from its boundary with lot 1, near lot 1’s south-western corner, through to its boundary with lot 3.

7. On the completion of the aforementioned requirements or in the event a material obstacle to their completion arises, the applicant will request the Registry to relist the application for continued hearing.

8. In relisting the application, the Registry will first consult the parties to ascertain their estimate of the continued hearing’s likely duration and allocate and notify a listing accordingly.

9. Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days’ notice in writing.

10. Costs reserved.

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

There could be cases in which assessing just compensation by means other than reference to the market value of land, may be appropriate.[3] However, the market value approach presents as the obvious and just approach here. [3]See, for example, some of the arguments considered in Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2005] QSC 112 [28] – [40].Conclusion I conclude that the in-between option should be adopted by my orders in imposing an easement over part of the rail corridor and part of lot 1. That conclusion remains subject to the assumption I have made that the Crown will likely consent to the Mansfields building and using a driveway over the road reserve. The orders I make should be qualified in such a way as to be conditional upon that consent being forthcoming. If such consent is not forthcoming it will be necessary to hear further argument from the parties. Another consideration which necessarily impairs my ability to make a properly detailed final order is that I do not have the benefit of a survey plan or set of measurements adequately describing the path of the in-between easement option. That detail would include the detail of the graduated path the easements would take at an angle up the slope from the rail corridor preceding the narrow neck, up to lot 1. Further, s 180 contemplates that the conditions of my final orders may:·condition the easement as exercisable by particular persons in particular numbers (s 180(2)(a));·include other conditions as may be just (s 180(4)(b);·direct the conduct of a survey and preparation of a survey plan (s 180(5)(a);·direct persons to execute and produce documents (s 180(5)(b)(c). In the circumstances, the prudent course is to make an order in general terms to the effect that the application is granted in part and afford the parties an opportunity to be further heard as to the final form of orders once a survey is completed. Adequate time should be allowed for the necessary survey measuring and planning so as to allow the specificity required in the order in respect of the easement’s location and dimensions. In the meantime, the parties should give consideration to the conditions they contend should be imposed upon the easement, including as to who may use it, whether fencing should be required and what excavation, works and installations are permitted. It will in due course be necessary to hear the parties as to costs but not until the completion of the aforementioned process and the case has reached the point when final orders are ready to be made.Orders My orders are:1. The application is granted in part, to the extent that the court is satisfied easements should be imposed upon the first respondent’s lot 1 and the second respondent’s rail corridor, in the form described in my reasons as the ‘in-between option’. 2. The applicants will prepare, file and serve a survey plan of an easement meeting the qualities of the form of easement referred to in order 1.3. The respondent will permit the entry and movement of the surveyor, the applicant and their agents upon lot 1 for the purposes of the surveyor preparing, under instruction, the survey plan referred to in order 2.4. The survey plan will include the total square metre measurement of that part of lot 1 occupied by the surveyed easement.5. The compensation payable by the applicant to the first respondent, as the owner of lot 1, on the imposition of the easement referred to in order 1, will be the number of square metres referred to in order 4 multiplied by $20.83.6. The applicant is to file and serve evidence that Mrs Mansfield has obtained the Crown’s consent to her constructing and using a driveway across the road reserve from its boundary with lot 1, near lot 1’s south-western corner, through to its boundary with lot 3.7. On the completion of the aforementioned requirements or in the event a material obstacle to their completion arises, the applicant will request the Registry to relist the application for continued hearing. 8. In relisting the application, the Registry will first consult the parties to ascertain their estimate of the continued hearing’s likely duration and allocate and notify a listing accordingly .9. Liberty to apply on the giving of two business days’ notice in writing.10. Costs reserved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.