- Information
- AI Chat
Was this document helpful?
Task 1 - task 1 property law
Course: Foundations of Property Law (LAWS12065)
12 Documents
Students shared 12 documents in this course
University: Central Queensland University
Was this document helpful?
Baileigh Wright Property Law B Student Number: 1114745
Question 1: Can the crews rely on the original easement?
The purpose of the easement
The second easement was an ‘access easement’, the purpose being to grant pedestrian and vehicle
access. Subsequent registered owners of the Servient Tenement are bound by all registered
easements but not unregistered.1 The access easement was registered, meaning that the dominant
and servient tenement must comply.2
The construction and purpose of an easement must be consistent with public interest as seen in
section 180 of the property law act.3 The purpose of the access easement was to grant admittance to
pedestrians and vehicles, but it only allows for standard vehicle access due to the fence constructed
at lot 1. A statutory easement can only be exercised when it does not interfere unreasonably with
the use and enjoyment of a lot or property (section 60-70 body corporate and community
management act).4 An easement can not be exercised in a way that interferes unreasonably with the
rights of other users as seen in Jelbert v Davis or used to unreasonably interfere with the use by
others entitled to its use.5
Misdescribed easement
The purpose of the ‘access and utilities easement’ was made to allow pedestrian, vehicle and
connection for service and utilities. The easement failed to be registered. Unregistered easements re
not binding unless the exceptions being (Land title Act 184, 185) misdescribed easements as seen in
Christopoulos v kells. (Does not satisfy as easement was not registered through error)
Easement not complying with development approval
The conditions of a development remain binding to the land, and the land subsequently issuing from
it. The decision effects developers and purchasers, implications do occur as seen in the case of Pike v
Tigh. The high Court determined that the conditions of the development approval remained binding
to owners as seen in section 245 of the sustainable planning act.
Extinguishing an easement
A dominant tenement being landlocked does not constitute automatically the imposition of a
statutory easement. Leaving an individual landlocked in property is not within the public interest, as
seen in the case of Ex Parte Edward Street Properties Pty ltd. Imposed by court orders in s 180 of the
Property Law Act.
1 Land Title Act 1994 (CTH) s 184.
2 Ibid s 185.
3 Property Law Act 1974 (CTH) s 180.
4 Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (CTH) s 68 (1).
5 Jelbert v Davis [1968] 1 WLR 589, CA
