Trewin v Felton

CITATION:	Trewin v Felton [2007] NSWSC 851
HEARING DATE(S):	14-17 May 2007 Written submissions 20 June 2007
JUDGMENT DATE :	7 August 2007
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Brereton J
DECISION:	Defendant is entitled to fence and gate corridor, but not so as to deny plaintiffs suitable access points, to permit reasonable user by them of right of carriageway. In current configuration, 13 metre access point exhausts limits of reasonable access. Plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction requiring demolition of gateposts, but not in respect of other alleged obstructions. Defendant is entitled to injunction restraining plaintiffs from authorising persons to use carriageway without ensuring that they do not park or remain in it. Defendant is not entitled to order modifying or partially extinguishing the easement.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – Torrens title – Easements – Right of carriageway – Construction – where created by s 88B instrument – where easement runs along length of a boundary of dominant land – extent of access points permitted from easement to dominant land – servient owner’s right to gate and fence easement – whether dominant owner entitled to park or remain on easement – Modification and extinguishment – whether obsolete – whether impedes reasonable user of servient land without securing practical benefit to dominant land – whether abandoned – whether can be modified without substantial injury to dominant owner – Obstruction – by gateposts – by gate – by fence – by parking – remedies – mandatory injunction – Trespass – by excessive user – parking by users authorised by dominant owner – remedies – injunction restraining authorising use without ensuring users do not park
LEGISLATION CITED:	(NSW) Conveyancing Act 1919, s 89(1)
CASES CITED:	Anderson v Pender [2002] NSWSC 1005 Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 1 WLR 1064 Butler v Muddle (1995) 6 BPR 13,984 Carlson v Carpenter (1998) NSW ConvR 55-848 Chatsworth Estates Company v Fewell [1931] 1 Ch 224 Chiu v Healey [2003] NSWSC 857 Clifford v Hoare (1874) LR9CP 362 Deanshaw & Deanshaw v Marshall (1978) 20 SASR 146 Dunell v Phillips (1982) 2 BPR 9517 Elliott v Renner [1923] St R Qd 172 Ewing Phosphate Company v Driver (1903) 23 NZLR 108 Gohl v Hender [1930] SASR 158 Gotobed v Pridmore (1970) 115 Sol Jo 78 Greater Sydney Development Association Ltd v Rivett (1929) 29 SR (NSW) 356 Grill v Hockey (1991) 5 BPR 11,421 Grinskis v Lahood [1971] NZLR 502 Heaton v Loblay (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 332 Hose v Cobden [1921] VLR 617 Jalnarne v Ridewood (1989) 61 P&CR 143 Johnstone v Holdway [1963] 1 QB 601 Jones v Pritchard [1908] 1 Ch 630 London and Suburban Land and Building Co (Holdings) Ltd v Carey (1991) 62 P&CR 480 Middleton v Arthur [2002] NSWSC 627 Nirimba Developments Pty Ltd v Sertari Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 252 Paterson & Barr Ltd v University of Otago [1925] NZLR 191 Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Westfield Management Ltd [2006] NSWCA 337 Pettey v Parsons [1914] 2 Ch 653 Powell…