Where the necessity for an easement under s 88K arises from a condition of development approval, the proposed easement must be capable of satisfying that condition; an easement that cannot comply with the condition from which the necessity is said to arise cannot be said to be reasonably necessary. Applicants must make more than perfunctory attempts to obtain alternative easements having the same effect, particularly where the alternative course is not significantly less advantageous. Costs under s 88K(5) are payable by the applicant on a party/party basis unless there is unreasonableness on the defendant's part warranting an indemnity order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 49 later cases that cite this judgment.