McCrow v Chaplin

The case of McCrow v Chaplin involved the plaintiff, McCrow, who held a right of carriageway over an access path leading to the defendant, Chaplin’s, property. McCrow alleged that Chaplin had obstructed this right by erecting a fence along the boundary of the right of carriageway, making it impossible to open the gate from McCrow’s side. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether the plaintiff’s right of carriageway was being unreasonably obstructed and whether there were any permissible modifications to the access points from the easement.

The court was required to determine the extent of access points permitted from an easement to the dominant land. It needed to decide if the plaintiff was exceeding reasonable user by relocating the gate or installing a second access point. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the general rule of costs following the event should be departed from, given the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of claims and non-compliance with the offer of compromise under the UCPR.

In its judgment, the court found that the existing gate needed to be rendered operable from within the dominant land. The court held that McCrow would not be exceeding reasonable user by relocating the gate or installing a second access point. Regarding the costs, the court decided that Chaplin should pay McCrow’s costs, given that the plaintiff pursued claims to relief to which they were not entitled and failed to comply with the rules for offers of compromise. The court concluded that if the offer had been accepted, Chaplin would not have been any worse off, justifying the costs order.