In the property and infrastructure world, access arrangements often feel straightforward until they aren’t. One recent dispute between neighbouring landowners serves as a timely reminder of why documented agreements, accurate surveys and expert valuation advice are essential safeguards.
When Informal Arrangements Create Formal Problems
Two adjoining properties in an established inner–city area had, for many decades, shared the use of a narrow driveway between them. The arrangement was informal and unrecorded. No easement had ever been registered. No written agreement existed. Yet both households had come to expect that the driveway was available for access when needed.
That understanding was tested when one owner began a major renovation. The neighbour objected, claiming a long–standing right of way existed across the boundary and that the renovation infringed upon it. The matter escalated into a Supreme Court proceeding that required the court to consider whether a legal right had ever existed, and whether one should now be imposed.
What the Court Found
In assessing the claim, the court reviewed:
- Historical aerial images
- Decades of ownership records
- The absence of any formalised agreement
- The practicality and safety of the proposed easement
- Expert valuation and planning evidence
The findings were clear:
- No easement had ever existed
- The claimed historical access arrangement could not be substantiated
- The proposed easement was not workable, either practically or safely
- Multiple alternative parking and access options existed on the claimant’s own land
- Imposing an easement would unfairly restrict the neighbouring property and significantly impact its utility and value
Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim and ordered the claimant to pay costs, including those associated with an earlier abandoned trial. What began as a neighbourly disagreement ended in a substantial financial loss. The lesson - evidence matters more than assumption.
This case underscores a message we see often in our work: long–term informal use does not create legal property rights.
For property owners, developers and professionals, the implications are significant. Without documented access rights, survey confirmation or legal clarity, assumptions can quickly turn into disputes and disputes can become expensive.
What This Means for Valuers and Property Professionals
For valuers, planners and consultants, the case reinforces several key themes:
Documentation is critical
Informal practices can feel “understood”, but without written agreements, they carry no legal weight.
Surveys help prevent conflict
A properly defined boundary and access arrangement can resolve issues long before they become disputes.
Practicality must be assessed, not assumed
Even when access claims appear reasonable, they must be supported by workable, safe design outcomes.
Expert evidence carries real influence
Courts rely heavily on valuation, planning and engineering assessments to understand impacts, feasibility and implications.
Early advice saves time and cost
Proactive review of title documents, site constraints and access needs is far more cost–effective than defending a position in court.
A Helpful Reminder for Our Industry
For the broader property sector, this is a cautionary tale about the risks of relying on historical habits rather than formalised rights. When developing, renovating or purchasing property, clarity around access is essential. Ensuring that agreements are documented, boundaries are surveyed and expert advice is sought early can prevent costly surprises later.
