Judgment
Benson Ebanks and O Graham Ebanks v James Floyd Reynolds; James Bartlett Reynolds; Blanche Reynolds; Burton Ebanks; Dalkeith Bothwell - Reasons for Decision
G 0224/1996 · 1996-11-12
Application to vary pedestrian right of way under Registered Land Law s.96; Interpretation of “reasonable user” and “injury” tests; Balancing proprietary rights vs commercial convenience; Evidentiary burden on applicant; Impact of proposed variation on dominant tenements; Principles from Murmarson and Strata Plan No.41 cases
Full metadata
| Cause Number | G 0224/1996 |
|---|---|
| Court | CIGC (Civ) |
| Judge | Murphy J |
| Parties | Benson Ebanks and O Graham Ebanks v James Floyd Reynolds; James Bartlett Reynolds; Blanche Reynolds; Burton Ebanks; Dalkeith Bothwell - Reasons for Decision |
| Judgment Date | 1996-11-12 |
| Subject | Application to vary pedestrian right of way under Registered Land Law s.96; Interpretation of “reasonable user” and “injury” tests; Balancing proprietary rights vs commercial convenience; Evidentiary burden on applicant; Impact of proposed variation on dominant tenements; Principles from Murmarson and Strata Plan No.41 cases |
| Filename (current) | 96-11-12-BENSON-EBANKS-v-JAMES-FLOYD-REYNOLDS.pdf |
The full text of this document is available to readers on this page. It is not served to automated crawlers.