Introduction:
Description:
The court case deals with a dispute over an easement given on a car park's property. At the time of the trial, the respondent had been attempting to limit the amount of time that the easement was allowed to be used while a tavern owner contended that the patrons of their business would be unable to take full advantage of the area during important hours. The limitation of five hours on the parking area’s use would profoundly limit the access that their customers have to parking. The rights of the easement as expressed by the grantee have come under question in order to establish the principles of use that can be given to both those of the carpark and the tavern owner. The case indicates that the express wishes of the grantor of the property indicated that there was an express purpose given to the tavern owner as a parking area just as it has been given to those of the carpark. For this reason, it is necessary to establish the basic rights of access and to determine the underlying conditions that the intentions of these legal principles can be focused on. After the trial the judge deliberated on the facts and used reasoning in order to come to a decision. The case itself established the general guidelines by which both the patrons of the carpark and the tavern owner must adhere to time periods that have been granted easements under the terms of the property title (Supreme Court of Queensland, 2015). I have visited many cases in the court and I have only chosen one cause to write about which is the car park property. This means that I haven't spent 6 hours in only one cause . I spent 20 mins in the car park property cause and it was on 23 of August.
Diagram:
The main participants of the case were the Marina Berth residents and the respondent within the case who were attempting to direct a limitation on the amount of people that could use the property as well as the amount of time that they were able to do so. The tavern owner was the other main participant in the case. These two individuals were unable to come to terms regarding the specifics of the easement and the rights that it granted them to use the property. The judge is the other main party within the document itself. The discussion is primarily portrayed from the point of view of the judge. These aspects of legal discussion demonstrate the principles by which these individuals can be seen to make their claims and decisions. The participants in the case represent the need for the judge to establish a more strict consideration of the easement and to define the level to which the decisions of each party should be taken into account. These differing perspectives represent the various considerations that have been given of the easement. While the respondent wished to implement a management plan in order to limit the amount of time that patrons of the local area could use the space the tavern requires in order to allow customers easy access. The issues of the case include “the impact on value of the subject land resulting from the consequences of the easement use” (Mangioni, 2005, p. 5). The major problem of the case is therefore establishing the point at which those who use the lot lose their privilege as marina users and at which point extending such rights might become directly negative to the tavern and its ability to continue to serve its customers. While the judge had hoped that the two would be able to establish a time frame that best suited their own positions through compromise it would ultimately fall to the authority of the court to establish this point of reference. The judge ultimately concluded that 10 hours was an acceptable timeframe to establish the circumstances by which privileges would be revoked.
Observations:
Understanding the underlying legal aspects of an easement is essential in this case. The underlying issue at hand is the principles of the easement that was given to the respondents and the underlying rules that govern its use. The idea of an easement is that it basically allows other rights to property without actual ownership over such property. As such requests are considered to be valid under the law the interpretation of easement rights is an important aspect of this case. The basic rights of easement holders vary depending on the areas that they live in. Furthermore, the principles of right-of-way, support, and others seem to present a more complex understanding of the relationship between the donor of the easement and those that have been given rights over it. In this case, the actual granter of the property is not clear. The variety of easements that exists dictates the need to understand how these ideas have become foundations under law. The affirmative nature of this easement seems to present the capacity for use rather than its restriction, as would be under a negative easement (Mahoney, 2000). This demonstrates the basis by which the judge’s decision would have to be made. Understanding the expectations of the easement and the limitations that have been put in place seem to indicate that there is a strong reason to consider the use of the land in relation to the tavern owner. The property itself should be considered in relation to the function that it provides to each within this situation. While the dominant estate within the case is both parties it is unclear who the servant estate is exactly. The judge makes it clear that this will have to be based on the perceptions of reasonableness that exist within the context of the easement itself.
For this reason, the judge takes into account the value or expectations of reasonableness that exist for each party. The fairness and feasibility of the requested intent were considered in order to propose a more considerate solution by which each party may still benefit from some way by the decision that would ultimately be made. The judge clearly indicates that there is a need to establish this basic tenet in order to reduce the proposals being given to their necessary components. The moderation of justice therefore becomes a pursuit of the intentions of each within the case and the overwhelming implications of their decisions to act in specific ways. For the marina, the capacity for those who use it to have parking for a period of time that would be considered reasonable and for the tavern a limitation on the number of users of the lot so that they will have the necessary room to provide their patrons with parking. Both of these requirements are necessary for the establishment of these needs (Dnes & Lueck, 2007). The implications of such a decision can be seen to profoundly adopt the requirements of fairness and the major challenge is to ensure that the use of the lot is divided balanced manner. The expedient decision making on the part of the judge will play a large role in the general equity that is ensured for the stakeholders within the case. The cap is put into place which, but the judge’s best estimate, provides the necessary framework by which both parties will be able to successfully operate.
The designation of 10 hours to the fulfillment of the easement dictates the result of careful consideration on the part of the judge. This language would likely provide the necessary context by which the decision could be made. Although the grantor apparently did not express the due considerations of the easement in the context of their will the grantees require some form of consideration in relation to the overall expectations of use that were regarded when the land was given. The necessity of access in relation to the easement presents the need to determine a commitment to specific timeframes and the express purpose of the decision was provide this need in a way that would allow both parties to adopt the necessary criteria for implementing such requirements on the courts in pursuit of justice (Gray, 1991). The burden imposed by the establishment of the easement demonstrates the need to carefully consider the relationship between the marina, the tavern and the land. The courts maintain the right to grant or limit easements of specific properties when there is no specific criteria by which need can be established. For this reason, the decision of the judge seems to maintain the basic principles of easement law by ensuring that access is granted on the grounds of need as well as intent. The implications of this can be understood after deeper analysis of the case itself.
Analysis:
The judge expresses the establishment of criteria through the application of specific reasons by which the decision was made. The granting of a specific timeframe by which the two applicants could provide their own entitlement decisions in relation to their specific needs can be seen to direct the basic rights of those involved towards the implementation of a set of criteria by which their circumstances can be better understood. The subject of agreement between the two parties was an important motive for this case and the individual presentations that the judge considers seem to be modified within the layers of legal discourse by which the implementation of the easement could be seen to have taken place (Badenhorst, 2015). The burdens on each were considered by the judge and presented through clarification of the principles by which these aspects of law can be understood. Access to and from the dominant tenement is a major criteria by which the judge made their decision regarding this case. In this way, it was necessary for the judge to consider the connection that the property has with the use of the marina and, by extension, the use of its boats. The consideration of those that leave the marina on boat was necessary to implement a more strict understanding of the use of the property by these individuals. While those patrons of the tavern use the parking lot simply to attend the tavern those that park and use the marina are leaving for longer periods of time, especially when they take their boats out. The connection between the use of the parking lot and the use of the boats is an essential criteria by which the implications of the easement can be understood to provide perspective.
The concept of reasonableness applied by the judge in the case demonstrates the overwhelming value that is placed on rational inquiry in the case. The need to carefully consider and relate the evidence despite the underlying dispute represents the demands of the court system for the judge to come to her ultimate decision. The judge determined that they could not in good standing provide the timeframe right away but instead opted to allow those that they were presiding over to come to a decision themselves. This is likely an attempt to contribute to the general considerations of need that each has and a desire to foster cooperation among the patrons of the tavern and those that use the lot for the marina. These expectations contribute to a larger and more demanding requirement by which the legal demands of the easement can be promoted through the incorporation of less strict boundaries on the easement (Burns, 2007). In this case it was evident that the individuals were unwilling to meet a moderate solution with one another in order to overcome the problem themselves. For this reason, the judge presented a restriction that limited the flexibility of the easement and ultimately determined that the general timeframe by which the patrons of the marina should be associated with the legal use of the land was within 10 hours. The idea of sufficiency in this respect can be understood in relation to the availability of space in relation to the use of the tavern as well as the expectations that the marina users have of the amount of time that is adequate for taking the boat out without completely leaving the area.
Sufficiency is an important idea for the application of law to easement cases. The level of consistency and efficiency by which space would be available for either party should be apparent when making such a decision. The desire for the judge to make her decision after careful deliberation on the part of both the parties presents the need to dictate a more elaborate consolidation of these times and to determine the requirements that these expectations can be related to. Instead, it is left to the courts to decide the most efficient way to deal with more specific circumstances. Research suggests that “judgements in recent cases are interpreted to mean that an owner's rights extend only so far as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land” (Donnelly, 2005, p. 5). Access to parking as well as the needs of the marina users presents the need to fulfill the underlying obligations of this requirement by establishing a limit to the number of people and amount of time that are considered in occupancy of the land. The question of sufficiency is therefore related to intent and the expectations that the proprietors of both services have for the fulfillment of the easement obligations. The contradictions in relation to land use must be afforded a specific hierarchy of value in consideration of the complications that might arise in processing the tenets of the contract.
That the respondent maintained that five hours was enough for the use of the marina indicates a lack of consideration on their own part for the needs of the agreement and the challenges that will be faced when it is put into action. These criteria can be understood in relation to the particular expectations that each of these individuals has for their own rights and needs to the land, however, the judgement that was handed down indicated a strong desire to coordinate the efforts of the two institutions to work out the most efficient way of dealing with the problem. “It may well be possible to go beyond specifying prohibited actions in this case and instead negotiate easements that delineate performance standards” (Deacon, & Parker, 2009, p. 39). The decision of the judge to extend the amount of time to ten hours dictates her underlying effort to promote these ideas and the requirements that have been established provide the necessary context that can help to implement a more lasting solution. However, in making the decision, the judge also ascertained a rule that must be implemented towards the easement in the future as well. This will be required to be followed throughout the articulation that is handed down by the judge.
The underlying connection of the marina with the lot indicates the need to consider the implications of the easement in relation to the priorities of these individuals. The modes of conduct by which people will be allowed to act in the future will be primarily determined by the implementation of a more consistent set of regulations for patrons of the lot. The judge would determine that the boats could not be used overnight, as this would overburden the limitations necessary for the easement to be beneficial to both parties. For this reason, the compromise must be made in order to develop a more full consideration of each party. The length of time can be related to the potential implications of the easement were to be broken by either party. “These enforcement powers endure, and remain with the land for subsequent purchasers, until and unless some event or condition renders themunenforceable” (Bronin, 2009, p. 1226). The application of this burden demonstrates the need to dictate the circumstances by which the valuation of the easement could be addressed through the lens of fairness and equality. The principles of behavior by which the grantees are expected to act presents an important relationship between these documents and the criteria by which they are executed. Reasonableness and the declaration of extent are necessary facets that indicate the underlying circumstances that must be considered when presiding over such a case. The judge therefore demonstrates an incentive to promote the doctrines of distribution of value and implements her directive in order to do so.
Summary:
In the end, the judge directs the attention of the case towards cost and the need to promote a distributive measure of equality to each party. The application of such procedures, she indicates, promotes the adoption of appropriate action and predicts the need to establish a moral objective by which the underlying strength of the argument of each party could be assessed. in consideration of these purposes, it is necessary to object to the implementation of priority to either party and to promote the application of right to one over the other. The reasonable nature of each request was directed towards the establishment of a compromise and the development of a more concrete easement that, in the future, would be built upon a more strict criteria of use. Relief that was sought by the tavern in relation to the use by the marina patrons demonstrates the underlying conflict of the case. The implications of the decision will ultimately result in the establishment of a rule of action for each party that will limit the access that they have to the lot under specific circumstances. While, for the tavern patrons, it is important to have ample parking for busy times, it was also important for the marina patrons to have the timeframe available to do the things that they desired to do. The implications of this require a balanced appeal to the essential characteristics of the case. The distribution of time and space is an essential way to divide the rights to the easement.
References
Badenhorst, P. (2015). Extinction of a Praedial Servitude of Light. Property Law Review, Vol. 49.
Bronin, S.C. (2009). Solar Rights. Boston University Law Review. Vol. 89. 1217-1267.
“BS12894”. (2015). Supreme Court of Queensland: Trial Division.
Burns, F. (2007). The Future of Prescriptive Elements in Australia and England. Melbourne University
Law Review. Vol. 31.
Deacon, R.T. & Parker, D.P. (2009). of Agricultural and Resource Economics Encumbering harvest
rights to protect marine environments: a model of marine conservation easements. The
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, pp. 37–58.
Dnes, A. & Lueck, D. (2007). Asymmetric Information and the Structure of Servitude Law. Cardon
Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics. No. 3.
Donnelly, G.J. (2005). Fundamentals of Land Ownership, and Boundaries, and Surveying. ICSM.
Gray, K. (1991). Property in Thin Air. Cambridge Law Journal. No. 872. 252-307.
Mahoney, J.D. (2000). Perpetual Restrictions on Land and the Problem of the Future. Property and
Law Policy. International Press.
Mangioni, V. (2005). Just Terms Compensation And The Compulsory Acquisition Of Land. University
of Sydney Press.
