City of Canterbury v Saad [2013] NSWCA 251

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: City of Canterbury v Saad [2013] NSWCA 251 Hearing dates: 17 June 2013 Decision date: 06 August 2013 Before: Beazley P at [1]; Meagher JA at [75]; Leeming JA at [76] Decision: 1. To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal; 2. Appeal dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY - easements - Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K(1) - whether easement was reasonably necessary

REAL PROPERTY - easements - Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K(2)(a) - whether use of the land having benefit of easement was inconsistent with the public interest - where the servient tenement is community land - whether error in having regard to surrounding land

REAL PROPERTY - easements - Conveyancing Act 1919, s 88K(1) - discretion to grant easement - relevance of applicant's knowledge that land is landlocked - whether dominant tenement purchased at discounted price. Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Local Government Act 1993 Cases Cited: 117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 6123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504 Bloom v Lepre [2008] NSWSC 79; 13 BPR 24,923 Etwell v Newcastle City Council [2006] NSWSC 1165; 151 LGERA 64 House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 ING Bank Australia Ltd v O'Shea [2010] NSWCA 71; 14 BPR 27,317 Khattar v Wiese [2005] NSWSC 1014; 12 BPR 23,235 Marshall v The Council of the City of Wollongong [2000] NSWSC 137; 107 LGERA 73 Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd v Tanlane Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445; 16 BPR 31,257 Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2; 171 LGERA 286 Category: Principal judgment Parties: City of Canterbury (Appellant) Samy Saad (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D A Priestley (Appellant) J A Loxton (Respondent) Solicitors: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Appellant) Gamble Law & Estate Planning (Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2012/151834 Decision under appeal Citation: Samy Saad v City of Canterbury [2012] NSWSC 389 Date of Decision: 2012-04-27 00:00:00 Before: Nicholas J File Number(s): 2011/221285