Peulen v Agius

The applicants, Peulen, sought a statutory right of user over a portion of the respondents' land that was currently occupied by a driveway. The applicants argued that the driveway was the dominant form of vehicular access for the tenement and that the alternative access would require the establishment of a new driveway and the use of an unsealed road, which was uneconomic and inefficient. The applicants also argued that the imposition of the statutory right of user would cause minimal interference with the privacy, amenity, use and quiet enjoyment of the respondents' property. The court was required to decide whether the imposition of the statutory right of user was reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use of the land.

The court found that the imposition of the statutory right of user was reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use of the land. The court noted that the driveway had been utilised by previous owners of the tenement as the dominant form of vehicular access, and that the alternative access was uneconomic and inefficient. The court also found that the imposition of the statutory right of user would cause minimal interference with the privacy, amenity, use and quiet enjoyment of the respondents' property. The court further found that there was a possibility that the local government authorities may not approve the registration of the proposed easement, and that the imposition of the statutory right of user was therefore necessary to ensure effective use of the land.

The court ordered that a statutory right of user in the form of an easement for right of way be imposed over Lot 6 in favour of Lot 5 in respect of the land currently occupied by the driveway lined with palm trees connecting Lot 5 with Maraju-Yakapari Road. The precise dimensions of the easement were to be agreed by the parties or, failing agreement, determined by the Court. The court also ordered that the applicants must keep the portion of land subject to the statutory right of user, and any fixtures, structures or plants located thereon, in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance. Finally, the court ordered that the applicants pay $2,500 in compensation to the respondents for the imposition of the statutory right of user.