Easement Disputes with New Neighbours: Lessons from the Vision Centre Case
The recent Queensland case of Body Corporate for Vision Centre Gold Coast Community Title Scheme 29190 v Nerang Qld Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 152 highlights the complex nature of easement disputes and the significant impact they can have on property rights and access with your neighbours.
Background
The dispute in this case revolved around an easement providing access to a parking area. Vision Centre’s staff, patients and visitors had used this particular driveway for many years uninterrupted.
The Body Corporate for Vision Centre (the “Body Corporate”) had assumed that the driveway was located on and protected by three registered easements. However, it was discovered that the easements in fact had a dog leg bend in them, and part of the driveway was not located on and protected by the easements.
The dispute arose when Nerang Qld Pty Ltd (“Nerang”) took ownership of the neighbouring block at the rear and blocked access along the driveway with temporary fencing.
The Body Corporate argued that Nerang had infringed on their easement rights by obstructing access. Nerang, on the other hand, contended that the Body Corporate was exceeding the easement's permitted use.
Key Issues
Scope of Easement Rights: A key issue in the case was defining the easement's scope. The Court had to interpret the terms of the easement and determine the intended rights and obligations of each party. This involved examining the language of the easement, the purpose of the easement, and the practical use of the property over time.
Obstruction and Reasonable Use: The Body Corporate claimed that Nerang's actions constituted an unreasonable obstruction of their easement rights. The Court had to assess what constituted a reasonable use of the land by both parties and whether Nerang's actions affected the Body Corporate's access rights.
Obvious Solution: The Court noted that the “obvious solution” was to re-position the easement so that it aligned with the existing driveway. However, the parties had become bitterly opposed and were not interested in pursuing the obvious solution.
Remedies: Upon finding an infringement of easement rights, the Court considered appropriate remedies. This included evaluating whether injunctive relief (ordering the removal of the obstruction) or damages would be the most fitting resolution.
Court’s Findings
The Court found that Nerang had unlawfully obstructed the right-of-way easement. It concluded that the easement clearly granted the Body Corporate the right to unobstructed access to the parking area. Nerang's actions, which included placing barriers and other impediments, were found to be unreasonable and contrary to the terms of the easement.
However, the Court further noted that under the terms of the easement, Nerang were not obliged to build or construct the right of way – their only obligation was to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the accessway. The Body Corporate had the right to construct a road or driveway at its own cost.
Lessons
Location of Easement: Property owners should ensure that they are aware of the position and terms of any easement affecting their property rights and access. If needed, engage a licenced surveyor to check the surveyed boundaries.
Clarity of Terms: The case emphasises the importance of clearly drafted easements. Property owners should ensure that the terms and scope of easement rights are unambiguous to avoid future disputes.
Reasonable Use and Cooperation: Both dominant (benefiting) and servient (burdened) tenement owners must engage in reasonable use of the easement. Cooperation and mutual respect of rights can prevent many disputes.
Legal Recourse: Property owners should be aware of their legal rights and remedies in the event of an easement dispute. Consulting an experienced lawyer early can often lead to more efficient and effective resolutions.
Please contact our experienced team for professional advice about your specific circumstances.