Finally had a few hours over the weekend to read another of Rob’s supplied judgments.
Walker vs Espie 2003
The dominant title holder was on a corner block that fronted 2 public roads, but they used a small public lane + an easment to access their property at the rear.
(Regardless of the court decision, they enjoy gate free access to their property)
Both the Servient and dominant title holders had a conversation and agreed to the use of a remote control electric gate, on one of the two common easment boundaries.
The relationship became unworkable when they could not decide who would pay the cost of the electric gate, who would provide and pay for electricity and if the electric gate would be absolutely mechanically reliable and if they are useable under a power outage etc.
In the court case the judge makes the following quote
“If those problems (reliability) can’t be resolved, they might mean that the presence of the gates is a substantial interferences of the right of way”
The judge also makes a comment on the possibility of a second gate being placed in the easment,
“ the situation would need need to be reconsidered”
Walker vs Espie 2003
The dominant title holder was on a corner block that fronted 2 public roads, but they used a small public lane + an easment to access their property at the rear.
(Regardless of the court decision, they enjoy gate free access to their property)
Both the Servient and dominant title holders had a conversation and agreed to the use of a remote control electric gate, on one of the two common easment boundaries.
The relationship became unworkable when they could not decide who would pay the cost of the electric gate, who would provide and pay for electricity and if the electric gate would be absolutely mechanically reliable and if they are useable under a power outage etc.
In the court case the judge makes the following quote
“If those problems (reliability) can’t be resolved, they might mean that the presence of the gates is a substantial interferences of the right of way”
The judge also makes a comment on the possibility of a second gate being placed in the easment,
“ the situation would need need to be reconsidered”