Ward v Hull

Case [2019] QSC 32


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Ward v Hull [2019] QSC 32
PARTIES:  GRAHAM JOHN WARD
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL EDWARD HULL
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:  SC No 61 of 2016
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Application

ORIGINATING

COURT: 

Supreme Court at Mackay 
DELIVERED ON:  21 February 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Townsville
HEARING DATE:  12 and 13 February 2018
JUDGE:  North J
ORDERS: 

1.   The applicant and the respondent are to submit, within 28 days, a draft of the orders for the imposition of a statutory right of use consistent with these reasons.

2.   Within 28 days, if not otherwise agreed, the applicant and the respondent are to submit written submissions concerning costs and such submissions not to exceed two (2) pages.

3.   The question of costs be determined on the papers without further hearing.

4.   Liberty to apply on four business days notice in writing concerning order 1.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – EASEMENTS – EASEMENTS GENERALLY – CREATION – BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT OR UNDER STATUTE – STATUTORY EASEMENTS – where an easement was sought over a pipeline on agricultural property – where the respondent accepted that the proposed easement was reasonably necessary in the interests of the effective use of the applicant’s land – where the respondent accepted that the proposed easement would be in the public interest - whether the respondent’s refusal to accept the imposition of the easement was unreasonable in the circumstances

LEGISLATION:

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 180

CASES:

Peulen & Anor v Agius & Anor [2015] QSC 137
Bradshaw v Griffiths [2016] QCA 20
Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2
2040 Logan Road Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paddington Mews CTS [2016] QSC 40

Naylor & Anor v Pierce & Anor [2010] QSC 399

COUNSEL:

P Cullinane for the applicant

S McLennan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

SB Wright & Wright and Condie for the applicant

Beckey, Knight & Elliott for the respondent

Introduction

  1. NORTH J: Pursuant to s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) the applicant seeks that a statutory right of user in the form of an easement be imposed upon the land of the respondent in favour of the land owned by the applicant.[1]

    [1]  Originating application filed 14 November 2016.

  2. The application concerns sugar cane farms on lands near Mount Martin, not far from Mackay. The applicant is the owner of the “dominant land” in these proceedings,[2] on which he has grown sugar cane for most of his life.[3] The respondent is the owner of the adjoining “servient land” which is currently leased to a third party who also grows sugar cane on the property.[4] Exhibit 1 is a survey map which depicts the common boundary of the two properties, the location of the pipeline the subject of the proceedings and the location of McGregor Creek which runs through the servient property to join with Silver Creek. The location of the pipeline was done, in part, by using ground penetrating radar by the surveyor Mr Dobbie.[5]

    [2]…

Continue reading Ward v Hull

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ward v Hull [2019] QSC 32
Case
[2019] QSC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ward v Hull, the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining whether a statutory easement could be imposed over a pipeline situated on agricultural land. The applicant, Ward, sought the easement for the purpose of installing a water pipeline, while the respondent, Hull, owned the land over which the easement was proposed. Both parties acknowledged that the easement was necessary for the effective use of Ward's land and in the public interest. However, Hull refused to accept the easement, leading to the court's examination of the reasonableness of this refusal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hull's refusal to accept the imposition of the easement was unreasonable given the circumstances. The court needed to balance the rights and interests of both parties, considering the necessity and public benefit of the proposed easement. It also had to determine if the statutory provisions for the imposition of such easements were applicable and if the statutory criteria were met.

The court found that the easement was reasonably necessary for the effective use of Ward's land and was in the public interest. Hull's refusal was deemed unreasonable as it did not align with the statutory objectives for imposing easements. The court held that the statutory provisions for the imposition of the easement applied and that the criteria for such imposition were satisfied. Therefore, the court ordered that the parties were to submit a draft of the orders for the imposition of the statutory right of use within 28 days. Additionally, written submissions concerning costs were to be submitted within the same timeframe, and the matter of costs was to be determined on the papers without further hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant and the respondent are to submit, within 28 days, a draft of the orders for the imposition of a statutory right of use consistent with these reasons.

2. Within 28 days, if not otherwise agreed, the applicant and the respondent are to submit written submissions concerning costs and such submissions not to exceed two (2) pages.

3. The question of costs be determined on the papers without further hearing.

4. Liberty to apply on four business days notice in writing concerning order 1.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.