The Court held that the s 185 PLA discretion must be exercised with regard to existing property rights and practical outcomes, declining to treat a purchaser's pre-acquisition knowledge of encroachments as equivalent to 'deliberate' encroachment by the purchaser, and cautioning against pigeon-holing cases into deliberate/non-deliberate categories where encroachments predate both parties' ownership. On the facts, the Court ordered transfer of only a small sliver of land (3.5m² for the carport encroachment) with compensation at unimproved capital value, but declined to transfer land for the water tanks, tiled patio, and pool surrounds — instead ordering their removal — because those structures were predominantly or entirely on the respondents' land and transfer would create impractical boundary configurations. The Court also clarified that structures such as a log and wire fence, sandstone block retaining wall, and cubby house did not qualify as 'buildings' of substantial and permanent character under the PLA, and that structures entirely within the adjacent owner's land cannot constitute encroachments regardless of their character.
The full text is available to signed-in members.