Legal Research
Cases
Sorbara v Prochilo

Sorbara v Prochilo

Case [2022] VSC 146 25 March 2022

Easements & Covenants

Adverse Possession

Implied Terms

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2018 00778

JOSEPH SORBARA & GAIL ISOBEL SORBARA	Plaintiffs
v
TERESA PROCHILO (in her own capacity and as legal personal representative of Giuseppe Prochilo deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23–6, 29–30 November, 1–2, 6–9, 13, 16 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sorbara v Prochilo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 146

---

PROPERTY – Easements – Easement by prescription arising from doctrine of lost modern grant – Where fruit farmer claims easement over neighbouring farming property for use as headland to turn machinery – Where fruit farmer claims easement over neighbouring farming property for use as carriageway and to tend crop – Knowledge of owner of servient tenement of acts of use – Actual and constructive knowledge – Presumption of knowledge of open use – Evidential onus – Whether use accommodates dominant tenement - Whether lease or licence by landholder to landholder’s company interrupted use – Whether easement to tend crops known to the law – Whether survey of land interrupted use – Proceeding dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr D Lloyd and Mr A Berger	Kim Bainbridge Legal Service Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr S Gannon	Embleton & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. The dispute.................................................................................................................................... 1

B. The land below the CB boundary allegedly used as a headland........................................ 3

B.1.The irrigation systems in place along the CB boundary................................................. 3
B.1.1.The relevance of the irrigation system and Mr Sorbara’s evidence.................. 3
B.1.2.Mrs Prochilo’s evidence.......................................................................................... 6
B.1.3.Mr Joey Prochilo’s evidence................................................................................... 7
B.1.4.The plan used to record spraying.......................................................................... 7
B.1.5.The contractor used................................................................................................. 8
B.1.6.The drip system for the single row of vines......................................................... 8
B.1.7.Conclusion — the drip system was installed by 23 May 1997.......................... 9

B.2.Did the Sorbaras turn on the Prochilos’ land?............................................................... 10
B.2.1.The parties’ positions............................................................................................. 10
B.2.2.Did the Sorbaras have sufficient space to turn machinery on their own land? 11
B.2.3.The Sorbaras were crossing the boundary at the time the fence was erected in September 2017...................................................................................................... 14
B.2.4.Would Mr Giuseppe Prochilo have refused to allow the Sorbaras to cross the boundary?............................................................................................................... 15
B.2.5.Was the CB boundary impassable after 1995..................................................... 17
B.2.6.Jones v Dunkel........................................................................................................ 19
B.2.7.The contention that the form of irrigation controlled the path of the Sorbaras’ machinery............................................................................................................... 19
B.2.8.Conclusion — the Sorbaras crossed the CB boundary from, but not before, 23 May 1997.......................................................................................................................... 21
B.2.8.1.After the drip system was installed.................................................... 21
B.2.8.2Before the drip system was installed................................................... 22

B.3.The criteria for the establishment of an easement......................................................... 25
B.4.Were the criteria for the establishment of an easement met?...................................... 29
B.4.1.‘Open’, and the requirement of notice or knowledge....................................... 29
B.4.1.1. Actual knowledge................................................................................... 29
B.4.1.2. Constructive notice................................................................................. 30
B.4.1.3. Shift in onus............................................................................................. 32

B.4.2.Conclusion — the easement is not established.................................................. 34
B.4.3.Continuous enjoyment.......................................................................................... 34
B.4.4.Without force.......................................................................................................... 34
B.4.5.Use ‘as of right’, or lack of permission................................................................ 35
B.4.6.Without stealth....................................................................................................... 35
B.4.7.Accommodate the dominant tenement.............................................................. 36
B.4.8.Is it an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sorbara v Prochilo

Details

AGLC: Sorbara v Prochilo [2022] VSC 146
Case: [2022] VSC 146
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sorbara v Prochilo, the dispute between the parties centred on the establishment of an easement by prescription over neighbouring farming properties. The Plaintiff, Sorbara, sought to establish a right of way for turning machinery over the Defendant’s land, as well as an easement to tend to the crops. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court included whether the Plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient use of the alleged easement to establish it by prescription, the knowledge of the owner of the servient tenement regarding this use, and the impact of any interruptions to this use, such as a lease or survey of the land.

The court assessed whether the Plaintiff’s use of the Defendant’s land was sufficient to establish an easement by prescription. It was necessary to determine whether the use was open, continuous, and apparent, and whether it accommodated the Plaintiff’s dominant tenement. The court also considered the impact of the Defendant’s knowledge of the Plaintiff’s use, as well as any interruptions to the use, such as the Defendant leasing the land to a company. Furthermore, the court examined whether an easement to tend crops was recognised under the law and whether the survey of the land constituted an interruption of the Plaintiff’s use.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated the necessary use to establish the easement by prescription. The court held that the Plaintiff’s use did not accommodate the dominant tenement in the required manner, and the Defendant’s knowledge of the use did not meet the necessary threshold. Additionally, the lease of the land to the Defendant’s company and the subsequent survey of the land constituted interruptions that prevented the establishment of the easement. Consequently, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s proceeding.

Orders