COSTS- Whether there was disentitling conduct by the 1st defendant - where two of three groups of plaintiffs were granted easement by prescription and the third group of plaintiffs was granted easement by virtue of s.88K - where plaintiffs perceive themselves as a one unit
HELD-1st Defendant was entitled to resist s.88K claim- defendant’s conduct not sufficient to deny her the benefit of s.88K (5)-By reason of offset and because plaintiffs succeeded on different basis each party to pay own costs
REAL PROPERTY-where defendant argues that the passageway burdened by the easement should be locked by a second gate for security reasons- where plaintiffs contend second gate is no more than an obstruction
HELD: The second gate is an obstacle to the prescriptive easement to which two sets of plaintiffs have been found to be entitled - gate to be removed
Case Details
Citation[2016] NSWSC 1585
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
