Written by The District Court’s decision in Hill v Wirepa [2024] NSWDC 373offers a timely reminder of the legal and literal boundaries that dictate rural land ownership in New South Wales. At the heart of this dispute was a neighbour’s misuse of access rights, which evolved into repeated, unlawful trespass. This resulted in a permanent injunction, a stern judicial rebuke, and indemnity costs.
The Hills, cattle farmers west of Port Macquarie, inherited land used historically by their neighbour, Ms Wirepa, as a passageway to the public road. But what began as tacit consent for access to Lot 170 escalated into wide-ranging use of the Hills’ property, including storing goods, running a business, and even inviting third parties to use the land. When informal resolution failed, the Hills turned to the courts.After Ms Wirepa’s failed attempt to secure an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), the Hills’ cross-claim proceeded in the District Court. The Court had little trouble finding that trespass had occurred. The conduct went well beyond any implied licence for access. As the Court rightly noted, this was not a case of ambiguous boundaries, rather a matter of a landowner treating someone else’s land as her own. The Court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Ms Wirepa from entering the Hills’ land except for the limited purpose of reaching the public road.
Declaratory relief was declined, and was judged to be unnecessary given the strength and scope of the injunction. There was a reasonable proposal to settle the matter, which Ms Wirepa ignored. The Court held this refusal to be unreasonable, and indemnity costs followed. This case is a warning to neighbours who ignore clear property boundaries and a lesson in the strategic use of Calderbank offers.