Mansfield v Binder

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.