Ringen Pty Ltd v Shelmerdine & Ors; Ringen Pty Ltd v Coghill

This case involved appeals by Ringen Pty Ltd against Janice Mary Shelmerdine and others, and against Colin Halley Coghill and others, before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the existence and enforceability of easements, specifically a carriageway easement, and the circumstances under which such easements could be removed from a title by the Registrar of Titles under section 73 of the Transfer of Land Act.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether easements were appurtenant to land under the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Land Act, particularly in light of amendments made to the legislation. The Court also had to consider whether the striking out of words relating to the grant of a carriageway easement from a transfer indicated that no grant had been made, which involved a question of construction. Crucially, the Court was asked to determine whether the abandonment of easements under section 73 of the Transfer of Land Act required proof of an intention to abandon, a requirement that exists at common law.

The appellant sought to add a ground of appeal concerning the abandonment of easements, arguing that intention to abandon was a necessary element for the Registrar to make an order under section 73 of the Transfer of Land Act. This point was distinct from issues relating to the initial imposition or grant of the easements. The appellant's submissions indicated that while some points raised on the special leave application had been rendered moot by subsequent legislative amendments, the question of abandonment under section 73 remained a live and discrete issue for the Court's determination.