George Laris v Chun Hung Lin [2015] NSWSC 473

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: George Laris v Chun Hung Lin [2015] NSWSC 473 Hearing dates: 24 April 2015 Date of orders: 24 April 2015 Decision date: 24 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: Plaintiff's claim dismissed. Cross-claim adjourned part heard to 25 June 2015. Catchwords: EASEMENTS – application to extinguish easements – where insufficient evidence provided of easements and alleged damage to found a claim in trespass – where dominant tenement forms part of an estate being administered in bankruptcy – notification of Official Trustee in Bankruptcy regarding proceedings. Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 89 Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Plaintiff: George Laris Defendant/cross-claimant: Chun Hung Lin Representation: Solicitors: Plaintiff: n/a Defendant/cross-claimant: Robert Adrian Stoyef, File Number(s): 2013/304889 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. Mr Chun Hung Lin owns a property in Croydon Road, in Croydon, close to the corner of Parramatta Road. In these proceedings in a cross-summons, he seeks the extinguishment of two easements which had been created over that property, in favour of another nearby property which abuts Parramatta Road. 2. Croydon Road runs in an approximately north-south direction at the front of Mr Lin's property, which is Lot 7 in DP 14354. Parramatta Road runs in an approximately east-west direction to the south of Lot 7, which lies only a short distance north of the north-western corner of Croydon Road and Parramatta Road ("the corner"). Between Lot 7 and the corner are properties which abut the northern side of Parramatta Road. These are Lots 1 - 6 in DP 14354. Lot 6 of DP 14354 abuts the western side of Croydon Road. Lot 1 in DP 743076 lie along Parramatta Road away from the corner in a westerly direction, immediately past the six properties of DP 14354. 3. In an easement created in 1927, Lots 1 to 6 each have rights of carriageway over the rear of those properties to allow access in an easterly direction towards Croydon Road for Lots 1 to 5 and ultimately over Lot 6, the lot closest to Croydon Road. Lot 7 also has rights of carriageway over Lots 1 to 6 in DP 14354. Lot 8 in DP 14354 also has rights of carriageway over Lot 7, and then in turn over Lots 1 to 6. But I am told by Mr Stoyef for the plaintiff that Lot 1 in DP 743076 does not have any rights of carriageway over Lots 1 to 6 in DP 14354. Lot 7 in DP 14354 and Lot 1 in DP 743076 were, until recent times, in common ownership of a Mr George Laris, the plaintiff in these proceedings. 4. Before the sale of Lot 7, Mr Laris appears to have created two easements, for the benefit of Lot 1 in DP 743076 and over Lot 7 in DP 14354, one in 1997 and one in 2010. Both easements give, so it is submitted, to Lot 1 in DP 743076 a right of carriageway over Lot 7, with the apparent intent that persons could then in turn take the benefit of Lot 7's easement over Lots 1 to 6 in DP 14354. If that is what the draftsperson of the easement actually had in mind, it may well be based upon a legal misconception. 5. Ordinarily, a person cannot tack himself or herself onto someone else's easement and then thereby get the benefit of another dominant tenement owner's easement over the servient tenement. Lot 1 in DP 743076 would have to negotiate its own easement over Lots 1 to 6 in DP 14354 to gain a complete right of carriageway east to Croydon Road. For that reason, it is necessary to scrutinise the easement documents in this case with precision, and that is where the problem starts in this case. 6. I am not satisfied on the evidence that I have seen so far that all the complete easement documents are actually before the Court. They have been presented in this case in an inconsistent way. Some documents have been tendered on their own, some documents are attached to the affidavits of the defendant/cross-claimant Mr Lin, and some have been attached to the affidavit of Mr Laris, the plaintiff, which affidavit was tendered as an exhibit in the cross-defendant's case. 7. Even brief perusal shows inconsistencies among the various forms of these documents in evidence. It is most important in applications such as this that the evidence be precise. But here it is not. 8. The procedural history of the matter may be shortly stated: Mr Laris initially brought proceedings by way of summons in October 2013, principally to prevent Mr Lin from obstructing Mr Laris' use of Lot 7, and thereby inhibiting Mr Laris from taking advantage of the easements appurtenant to Lot 7. Mr Lin then cross-claimed for extinguishment of the easements under Conveyancing Act 1919, s 89. The matter was listed for hearing before Nicholas J on 8 December 2014. 9. Four days before that appointed hearing, Mr Laris filed a debtor's petition. His affairs are now under the administration of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. But Mr Lin now pursues his cross-summons seeking extinguishment of both these easements. 10. Mr Lin also sought the removal of a fence which Mr Laris has erected over the rear of Mr Lin's property. Mr Laris appeared to seek to fence off the whole of the back of Mr Lin's property, so that Mr Laris or his tenants could use the area of the easement for car parking. Without finally deciding the matter, such use seems to go beyond the rights that would ordinarily be exercised by a dominant tenement holder. 11. The Court is disinclined to grant any relief today. The Court will decide to adjourn these proceedings until 25 June 2015, so that they can be put in proper order. 12. There are several reasons for this. It is fundamental in cases where orders are sought under Conveyancing Act, s 89, for the Court to have before it clear copies of all the relevant easements and deposited plans attested to on oath (or agreed) as being the result of searches from the Registrar General's Office or the Land Titles Office. That is not clear from the affidavit evidence that has been read in this case, as I have indicated. The affidavits should be set up in a logical sequence, so the Court can follow exactly which documents are in issue and what has happened. 13. In particular, the Court is not confident that it has the complete documentation for the 1997 and 2010 easements. So it is not clear that Lot 1 in DP 743076 does not claim some right of access under the easement over Lots 1 to 6 in DP 14354. From the materials that have been provided, it looks as though that is not the case. But the Court is not sure. 14. Another concern prompts the Court to require the delivery of further evidence before proceeding further and possibly to make orders. If the cross-claimant's contention is right and the easements simply give rights over Lot 7, they are easements based on somewhat of a misconception because they do not go anywhere. They simply go to the rear of Lot 7 and no further. 15. That would not be a right of carriageway as ordinarily understood and would indicate perhaps that the easement has been poorly drafted. But the Court will not readily draw the conclusion that the easement has been badly drafted and accepted by the Land Titles Office.