Saldanha v City of Belmont

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Saldanha and others appealed against a decision of the District Court of Western Australia, which had granted the City of Belmont a declaration and injunction enforcing an easement on the appellants' land. The City of Belmont had sought the enforcement of an easement, which the appellants argued was not validly granted. Additionally, the City of Belmont's application under section 129C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) to remove the easement from the certificate of title was dismissed by the trial judge. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the easement deed, the authority of the City of Belmont to acquire the easement, and the applicability of certain statutory provisions.

The primary legal issues centred on whether the deed granting the easement was valid and enforceable, whether the City of Belmont had the power to acquire the easement, and if sections 33A of the Public Works Act 1902 (WA) and 195 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) applied only to easements acquired for public works. The court also considered the impact of the indefeasibility provisions of the Transfer of Land Act and whether the trial judge was correct in not making a declaration or order under section 129C. Furthermore, the court examined the scope and operation of section 129C and whether the trial judge erred in ordering the appellants to pay the City of Belmont's costs.

The court held that the deed granting the easement was valid and enforceable, and the City of Belmont had the power to acquire the easement. The statutory provisions did not limit the acquisition to easements for public works. The indefeasibility provisions did not affect the enforcement of the easement as it was validly granted. The trial judge was correct in not making a declaration or order under section 129C, as the City of Belmont did not seek to have the easement removed from the certificate of title. The court found that the trial judge did not err in ordering the appellants to pay the City of Belmont's costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the City of Belmont's costs of the appeal. The decision of the District Court was upheld, and the easement remained enforceable on the appellants' land in favour of the City of Belmont.