Relief against forfeiture of an easement requires unconscientiousness on the part of the servient tenement owner as the ultimate question, even where the applicant is a mortgagee who did not personally commit the breaches and offers monetary compensation; where breaches cause substantial inconvenience and loss of amenity and are likely to recur, monetary compensation is not a sufficient basis for relief. The term 'reasonably necessary' in s 88K(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 requires an assessment of all relevant matters including the impact on the servient tenement and interference with property rights, and cannot be reduced to whether use with the easement would be 'substantially preferable' to use without it.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 33 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 33 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.