High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McHUGH ACJ, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ
HILLPALM PTY LIMITED APPELLANT
AND
HEAVEN'S DOOR PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT
Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven's Door Pty Ltd
[2004] HCA 59
1 December 2004
S530/2003
ORDER
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal made on 3 October 2002 set aside and in their place order:
(i) Appeal allowed with costs.
(ii) Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the orders of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court made on 7 June 2001 set aside and in their place order that the application is dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Representation:
D F Jackson QC with P R McGuire for the appellant (instructed by Bolster & Co)
T F Robertson SC with L M Byrne for the respondent (instructed by Woolf Associates)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Hillpalm Pty Ltd v Heaven's Door Pty Ltd
Real Property – Easements – Subdivision of land – Adjoining lots on a subdivision – Proposed plan of subdivision depicted "proposed right of way 10 wide" across one lot – Council approved subdivision – Whether creation of easement was a condition of the grant of approval of the subdivision – Easement not registered under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) – Whether appellant required to grant registered easement of right of way.
Real Property – Land titles under the Torrens system – Exceptions to indefeasibility of registered title – Whether Council's consent to the subdivision created a right in rem that could be relied upon by the respondent to require the appellant to grant a registered easement of way – Whether such a right consistent with s 42(1) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW).
Local Government – Town planning – Whether the creation of a right of way was a "condition" of a "development consent" under s 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ("EPAA") – Whether purchase and occupation of land was to "carry out development" of the subdivision and therefore a breach of s 76A(1) of the EPAA – Whether s 123 of the EPAA empowers the making of orders to remedy or restrain a breach of the EPAA to a person who had not committed any breach of the EPAA.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate