Allowed
Injunction Granted to Remove Fence Obstructing Easement
Case No.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The plaintiff is entitled to use the easement for various purposes including walking and driving vehicles.
- The fence erected by the defendant completely denies the plaintiff's right of carriageway, interfering with their legal rights.
- A mandatory injunction is appropriate as it is the only practical way to remedy the interference with the easement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The defendants argued that the right of carriageway can only be used for motor vehicles if they trespass on the plaintiff’s land, which the court did not accept.
- The defendants suggested that a vehicle cannot actually get into the backyard of lot 25 using only the rights conferred by the easement, but this was not accepted as it does not limit the use of the right of way.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a fence that was blocking an easement, preventing the property owner from using it.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to seek an injunction to remove a fence obstructing an easement if they can prove that the easement is being blocked.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the property and the fence were tendered in evidence.
Official source: Supreme Court of New South Wales — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is reproduced from NSW Caselaw (© State of New South Wales) under its published republication policy. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.