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 40COUNSEL:
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
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.
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
- AGLC
- Ward v Hull [2019] QSC 32
- Case
- [2019] QSC 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.