The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 v Murrell; Murrell v The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 - [2020] NSWSC 1542 - NSWSC 2020 case summary

Supreme Court of NSW|2020-10-30|Before: Williams J, Mr J

Introduction

On 1 October 2020, I gave reasons for judgment in which I upheld claims by the plaintiff in proceeding 2019/201673 that the defendants had trespassed into Airspace owned by the plaintiff on several occasions and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000 in respect of those trespasses: The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 v Murrell; Murrell v The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 [2020] NSWSC 20 (the principal judgment) at [141]-[320], [334]-[335] and [338]-[346].
On 13 October 2020, the defendants in proceeding 2019/201673 filed a notice of motion seeking an order under r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) setting aside the judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000 in respect of the defendants' trespasses into the Airspace, and an extension of time for compliance with directions made for steps to be taken to facilitate the making of orders in accordance with the principal judgment pending determination of the notice of motion.
On 20 October 2020, I made the order extending time and listed the balance of the notice of motion for hearing on 30 October 2020. For the reasons explained below, the balance of the motion is dismissed.

Consideration and determination

As recorded in the principal judgment at [32], the Owners Corporation claimed that the Murrells had trespassed on its property, including by repeatedly entering into the Airspace between about November 2018 and July 2019.
The claims relating to trespass on other property of the Owners Corporation are not relevant to the subject matter of the Murrells' notice of motion filed on 13 October 2020. References to trespass claims in these reasons are references to the trespass claims relating to the Airspace only.
As recorded in the principal judgment at [38], the Murrells submitted that their entries into the Airspace owned by the Owners Corporation did not constitute trespass because: 1. the Airspace was subject to the Restriction created in June 1992 that is referred to in [15]-[17] of the principal judgment; 2. the Restriction, properly construed, included an implied positive covenant or implied easement for the owner of Lot 21 (being the land owned by the Murrells, as defined in the principal judgment at [13]) to exceed the height of RL 26 AHD on a temporary or transitory basis to repair, maintain or improve any structures on Lot 21 below that height, and that this implied positive covenant or implied easement continued to operate after the Airspace plan of subdivision (described in [18]-[20] of the principal judgment) was registered in September 1997; or 3. alternatively, an implied easement of necessity was created on the registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision in September 1997 that permitted the owners of Lot 21 to exceed the height of RL 26 AHD on a temporary or transitory basis to repair, maintain or improve any structures on Lot 21 below that height.
It is convenient to refer to the second submission described in [7(2)] above as the construction submission.
The construction submission was made for the first time in the Murrells' oral opening submissions on the first day of the hearing.
No implied positive covenant or implied easement had been pleaded or referred to in the Murrells' written opening submissions served two days before the commencement of the hearing.
The point made in the written opening submissions concerning the construction of the Restriction was limited to a submission that the Restriction operated only to prevent the construction, erection or placement of matters or things on Lot 21 with some permanence that exceeded the height of RL 26 AHD. In their written opening submissions, the Murrells submitted that the Restriction, properly construed, did not prohibit the owners of Lot 21 from otherwise exceeding the height of RL 26 AHD, including by entering the Airspace on a temporary basis for the purpose of carrying out repairs and maintenance to structures on Lot 21 that existed below the height of RL 26 AHD.
In oral opening submissions, and in response to a submission made by the Owners Corporation that the Restriction became "otiose" upon the registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision (see the principal judgment at [111]-[123]), the Murrells developed the submission that the Restriction, properly construed, included an implied positive covenant or implied easement for the owner of Lot 21 to exceed the height of RL 26 AHD on a temporary or transitory basis to repair, maintain or improve any structures on Lot 21 below that height. It was submitted that this implied positive covenant or implied easement continued to have work to do, and continued to operate after the registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision. [1]
In answer to a question from me, senior counsel for the Murrells identified that the basis on which the Murrells contended that the Restriction should be construed as containing an implied easement that continued to have practical operation after registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision was: [2] "Certainly an easement of necessity. … certainly we very much have in mind an easement of necessity for all the reasons we've outlined."
That was the only reference to an easement of necessity in the Murrells' oral opening submissions.
Senior counsel's reference to the "reasons we've outlined" in that exchange was a reference to the practical impossibility of affecting repairs and maintenance to the concrete roof, given the space of only 11 to 16cm between the roof and the lower boundary of the Airspace owned by the Owners Corporation as shown on DP 645772 which was registered with the s 88B instrument when the Restriction was created. [3]
In referring to an easement of necessity in the context of that exchange, senior counsel for the Murrells was submitting that the Restriction, properly construed, included an implied easement because it was plain that such an easement was necessary in order for the owners of Lot 21 to repair and maintain the concrete roof. Senior counsel was not (at that stage) submitting that an implied easement of necessity had arisen by operation of law in favour of the owners of Lot 21 when the Restriction was created on 10 June 1992 or at any other time. On the contrary, senior counsel eschewed reliance on such general law principles and submitted that, if the Court rejected the Murrells' submission concerning the proper construction of the Restriction, then the Restriction should be modified pursuant to s 89 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). [4]
In written closing submissions dated 13 May 2020, the Murrells again addressed the Owners Corporation's contention that the Restriction became "otiose" when the Airspace plan of subdivision was registered. Again, the Murrells submissions' drew on principles relevant to implied easements of necessity by operation of law only in support of the construction submission. The Murrells submitted that: [5] 1. the Restriction was expressly noted on the Airspace plan of subdivision; and 2. the Airspace plan of subdivision should be construed as preserving or maintaining the implied positive covenant or implied easement that the Murrells submitted was impliedly included in the Restriction because: "If the Court were to construe [the Airspace plan of subdivision] otherwise, then upon registration of the stratum subdivision the owner of Lot 21 was for all practical purposes left without any means of access to the Concrete Roof. Moreover, the right is much more than a matter of convenience: it is essential for the use of Lot 21 in that, absent an easement (or a Lilliputian tradesperson), the owner of Lot 21 is unable to effect repairs, maintenance or improvements."
The Murrells submitted that "the implication of an easement in this manner" - that is, by construing the Restriction as including an implied easement and by construing the Airspace plan of subdivision as noting and preserving the Restriction - "involves no derogation from the principle of indefeasibility of title. By the notation of the Restriction on [the Airspace plan of subdivision], the Restriction is expressly recorded on the register". [6] The submissions continued (my emphasis): [7] "Once created by the section 88B instrument, the Restriction continues to operate unless otherwise extinguished. No extinguishment has occurred under the provisions of the Conveyancing Act … and in this context, the express notation of the Restriction in the registered plan must have work to do. Further, in the present case, the rights relied upon are in the nature of an implied term in a registered instrument."
As is plain from the preceding submission, the reference to "an implied term in a registered instrument" is a reference to the positive covenant or easement that the Murrells submitted should be implied in the Restriction in the s 88B instrument as a matter of construction and/or the Airspace plan of subdivision (because it noted the Restriction).
In oral closing submissions, senior counsel for the Murrells initially continued to rely on principles relevant to implied easements of necessity by operation of law only in a manner that was tied to, and dependent upon, the Court accepting the Murrells construction submission. Senior counsel for the Murrells said (my emphasis): [8] "… we make the submission that based on the proper construction of the restriction, an easement of necessity should be implied necessarily to have been intended upon the registration of the strata and subdivision in the creation of that boundary so as to avoid what otherwise in our submission is the impossible conundrum that has since been really the essence of the dispute between the parties. In order to make good that submission, your Honour will need to accept, as we respectfully submit your Honour ought to, that by the notification of the restriction on DP871094 [the Airspace plan of subdivision], the common intention of the parties was that this right of access inheres in the restriction as a matter of construction, and that it would be maintained. The fact that it was specifically noted by reference to letter B in the plan of subdivision assumes great significance in that regard. And the additional notation on the plan of subdivision which directs attention to the little triangle and notes the roof slab at RL 25.86 is also of great significance. And that's because the existence of the concrete roof and that minimal distance between RL 25.84 or 86 and the boundary at RL 26 meant that it could not have otherwise been - it could not have been other than obvious that the concreted roof could not be adequately accessed unless there was a right of access available for that purpose. Your Honour, that is how, in our submission, based on the proper construction of the restriction, the implication of the easement by a restriction - by a necessity arises."
The Murrells' construction submission was ultimately rejected for the reasons set out principal judgment [77]-[110]. As explained in those paragraphs (and particularly at [103]), I considered that the implication of the easement contended for by the Murrells was not necessary in order to avoid an absurd outcome of the Restriction preventing the owners of Lot 21 from accessing the concrete roof to carry out repairs and maintenance because: 1. the express terms of the Restriction, properly construed, did not preclude the owners of Lot 21 from entering into or placing items on the concrete roof above the height of RL 26 AHD on a temporary basis for any purpose; and 2. the Restriction fell to be construed at the time that it was created in June 1992. The owners of Lot 21 owned the Airspace at that time, and were entitled to use and enter into the Airspace, except to the extent prohibited by the Restriction (or any other relevant environmental and planning laws). The alleged absurd outcome did not arise, and there was no basis for construing the Restriction as including an implied right to do things that the owners of Lot 21 were already entitled to do by reason of their ownership of the Airspace. In other words, there was no basis for construing the Restriction as including an easement in favour of the owners of Lot 21 over their own land. [9]
I raised these matters with senior counsel for the Murrells in oral closing submissions (my emphasis): [10] "HER HONOUR: Mr Alexis, do you say that the right of access which was one which inhered in the restriction immediately prior to the subdivision? ALEXIS: Yes. HER HONOUR: Didn't the right of access immediately prior to the subdivision inhere in the dominant tenement's ownership of the - sorry, the servient tenement's ownership of the air space though? Which was the very thing that was removed by the plan of subdivision? ALEXIS: I'm sorry. Would your Honour be good enough to repeat that question because-- HER HONOUR: Yes, that's all right. Immediately prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision, wasn't the right of the owners of number 97 to put people up on the roof to move around, et cetera. Wasn't that right something that flowed from the ownership of the airspace rather than from the restriction per se? ALEXIS: Yes. HER HONOUR: And so when the plan of subdivision is registered, there's no right of access in hearing [sic - inhering] in the restriction immediately prior to that point per se, is there? It's a right that has been associated with their ownership of the airspace, which is removed by the registration of the plan of subdivision. ALEXIS: Yes, I see what your Honour is putting to me, and it inheres in the restriction on the basis of our construction of it, and the fact that prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision, the owner of the servient tenement, as it was then understood, had a right of access. And so the restriction, in terms of how it operated after the registration of the plan of subdivision, relies on the fact that immediately prior to its registration, there was no restriction and there was a right of access arising, I think we have to accept, by reason of the ownership of that airspace. But that very circumstance drives the necessary implication of the easement for access. Because the effect of the stratum subdivision was to put a boundary at RL26 and hitherto bring to an end rights enjoyed by reason of the ownership of that airspace. And that's what drives the necessity. Because it must have been obvious that because of the physical proximity of the concrete roof noted on the plan, if there wasn't ever to a preservation for maintenance of that right of access, then the problem arising would be inevitable. So to answer your Honour's question, I think we have to accept that it inheres in the restriction but it also arises by reason of the rights hither to enjoy as the owner of the servient tenement in that airspace, which effectively was brought to an end upon registration of the plan of subdivision. And our submission has to accept that, your Honour."
As senior counsel for the Murrells accepted at the hearing of the notice of motion, the emphasised passages in the above exchange represent the first and only occasion on which the Murrells raised a contention that an implied easement of necessity by operation of law arose when the Airspace plan of subdivision was registered, separately from the construction submission that I have summarised in [12]-[20] above.
It was the Murrells' submission in oral closing submissions emphasised in the passage set out above that was identified as the alternative submission in [38] of the principal judgment: see [7(3)] above. For brevity, I shall refer to it as the alternative submission.
The Owners Corporation did not object to the Murrells introducing the alternative submission without pleading or other prior notice at the very end of oral closing submissions on the fourth day of a four day hearing. Unsurprisingly in the circumstances, the Owners Corporation's response to the alternative submission was very brief. Counsel for the Owners Corporation submitted that no easement of necessity arose by operation of law because access to the concrete roof was a matter of convenience rather than necessity. [11]
Neither the Murrells nor the Owners Corporation addressed the question whether, if an implied easement of necessity arose by operation of law at the time of registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision, s 42 of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) precluded the Murrells (who are successors in title to the then owners of Lot 21) from now enforcing that implied easement against the Owners Corporation (which is the successor in title to the then owners of the Airspace).
At the very end of the fourth day of the hearing, the Murrells made an oral application for leave to amend the terms of relief sought pursuant to s 88K of the Conveyancing Act in their statement of claim in proceeding 2019/299582. (Leave was subsequently granted: see principal judgment at [364]-[381]. The Murrells made no application to amend by adding to their claims for declaratory relief a declaration to the effect that they had the benefit of an implied easement of necessity that arose by operation of law.
In relation to the alternative submission, I concluded that the Court should attribute to the predecessors in title to the Murrells and the Owners Corporation a common intention, at the time of registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision in September 1997, that the owners of Lot 21 (the predecessors in title to the Murrells) would be entitled to enter the Airspace on a temporary or transitory basis for the purpose of maintenance and repair of structures on Lot 21 below the height of RL 26 AHD. That common intention was to be attributed to those predecessors in title by reason of the circumstances associated with the subdivision of the Airspace from Lot 21 - namely, the close proximity of the lower boundary of the Airspace to the concrete roof of the dwelling on Lot 21 otherwise made access to that roof practically impossible. On the basis of that presumed common intention, an implied easement of necessity arose by operation of general law at the time of registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision: see principal judgment at [125]-[135].
However, I also concluded that the implied easement of necessity was not enforceable by the Murrells (the successors in title to the owners of Lot 21 at the time the implied easement of necessity arose) against the Owners Corporation (the successors in title to the owner of the Airspace at the time the implied easement of necessity arose), by reason of s 42 of the Real Property Act: see principal judgment at [136]-[138].
It followed from my rejection of the construction submission, my conclusion that the implied easement of necessity was not enforceable by the Murrells against the Owners Corporation, and my rejection of the defence of necessity to the trespass claims that some of the Murrells' entries into the Airspace had constituted trespass: see principal judgment at [304]-[320].
The Murrells now submit that: 1. they did not have a fair opportunity to be heard in relation to the question whether s 42 of the Real Property Act precluded them from enforcing the implied easement of necessity against the Owners Corporation; and 2. unaided by submissions from the parties on that question, the Court may have overlooked the fact that the proximity of the concrete roof of Lot 21 to the lower boundary of the Airspace was noted on registered plans and that "the easement of necessity arose by necessary implication from the registered instruments".
Those are the grounds on which the Murrells apply for an order under UCPR r 36.16(3A) setting aside the judgment in favour of the Owners Corporation in relation to trespasses to the Airspace. [12]

First ground: alleged denial of procedural fairness

The Murrells submit that paragraph 57 of their written closing submissions stated that "the implication of an easement in this manner involves no derogation from the principle of indefeasibility of title …" and the Owners Corporation made no submission to the contrary as noted at [121] of the principal judgment. If the Owners Corporation had raised s 42 as the reason why an implied easement of necessity could not be enforced, then the Murrells would have addressed that submission.
I reject these submissions for three reasons.
First, the submission in paragraph 57 of the Murrells' written closing submissions was plainly directed to the construction submission and the recording of the Restriction on the Airspace plan of subdivision: see [17]-[19] above. The alternative submission relying on an implied easement of necessity by operation of law had not yet been made: see [22]-[24] above.
Second, the Murrells' reliance on the principal judgment at [121] is misconceived. It is correct that the Owners Corporation did not submit that its title to the Airspace was not subject to the Restriction by reason of the operation of s 42 of the Real Property Act. (I did not find it necessary to determine that issue in circumstances where I had concluded that the Restriction did not include the implied easement for which the Murrells contended in their construction submission: principal judgment at [75]-[123].) Whether or not s 42 of the Real Property Act precluded the Owners Corporation's title being subject to an implied easement of necessity that had arisen by operation of law when the Airspace was subdivided by registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision in September 1997 is an entirely separate issue, about which neither party made submissions.
Third, as is plain from the history recorded in [7]-[26] above, the Murrells had ample opportunity put all submissions they wished to rely on during the course of the hearing, including submissions raising issues that had not been pleaded. Once they raised the alternative submission in oral closing submissions, it was incumbent on them to address all matters that they wished to put before the Court in support of that submission. They had the opportunity to do so during the hearing. If further thoughts had occurred to them after the conclusion of the hearing, they could have sought leave to make further submissions. They did not do so.
In their written and oral closing submissions drawing on the principles concerning implied easements of necessity in support of their construction submission, the Murrells had relied on Rixon v Horseshoe Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1293 at [44] as setting out those principles. In that case, Brereton J (as his Honour then was) had considered the question whether implied easements (including implied easements of necessity) can arise in respect of land under the Real Property Act (at [37]-[43]). His Honour referred to s 42 and to the prevailing view that easements can be created over Torrens land only in the manner provided by s 46. His Honour stated that this did not admit of implied grants of the Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31 variety or implied easements of necessity but that (at [37]): "… at least until the decision of the Court of Appeal in McGrath v Campbell, it has generally been accepted that a Wheeldon v Burrows easement, although not noted on the certificate of title of the servient tenement, may be enforced against the registered proprietor of that tenement who created the easement, although not against successors in title."
His Honour then considered McGrath v Campell (2006) 68 NSWLR 229; [2006] NSWCA 180 and other authorities before concluding that (at [42]): "…while casting doubt on the availability of a Wheeldon v Burrows easement in the context of Torrens land simpliciter, McGrath v Campbell does not overrule the earlier cases in which it had been found available as a personal right enforceable against the transferor though not against successors in title. Moreover, it recognises that if there are circumstances which so implicate the grantor as to make it unconscionable to insist on its strict legal right, a personal equity against the grantor (though not against successor in title) will stand outside the cloak of indefeasibility."
It was plain from those passages of Rixon v Horseshoe Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (supra) that, if the Murrells wished to establish that they had the benefit of an implied easement of necessity that arose by operation of law when the Airspace plan of subdivision was registered which was enforceable against the Owners Corporation (a successor in title to the entity that took ownership of the Airspace on registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision), and provided them with a defence to the Owners Corporation's claim in trespass, the Murrells needed to identify why the Owners Corporation's registered title to the Airspace was subject to the implied easement notwithstanding the provisions of s 42 of the Real Property Act. The Murrells (by choice or by oversight) did not address this issue in making the alternative submission.
It is plainly wrong for the Murrells to suggest that it was for the Owners Corporation to rely on s 42 in responding to the alternative submission before the Murrells were required to address the issue.
For the reasons in [33]-[41] above, I reject the submission that the Murrells were denied procedural fairness.

Second ground: Matters allegedly overlooked by the Court

The Murrells now submit that, in determining that the Owners Corporation's indefeasible title to the Airspace was not subject to the implied easement of necessity that arose when ownership was conferred on its predecessor in title by registration of the Airspace plan of subdivision, I may have overlooked that: 1. the second schedule of the folio of the register for the common property of the Owners Corporation (including the Airspace) records that the land is limited in stratum in the manner described in the Airspace plan of subdivision; and 2. in addition to recording the limited depth of the Airspace, the Airspace plan of subdivision also notes the height of the concrete roof of the dwelling on Lot 21; and 3. from these two items of information, a reader of the plan can ascertain the very close proximity of the concrete roof to the lower boundary of the Airspace.
The Murrells submit that, as a result of overlooking this matter, I erred in concluding that the Owners Corporation's registered title was not subject to the implied easement of necessity. The Murrells submit that the easement arose "by necessary implication from the registered instruments". At the hearing of the notice of motion, senior counsel for the Murrells explained this submission, saying that the circumstances from which the implied easement of necessity was found to have arisen were matters that were noted in the Airspace plan of subdivision (as I have described immediately above) or were matters of law: see principal judgment at [131]-[132]. It followed, in the Murrells' submission, that "s 42 does not prevent the Murrells from relying on the easement as a defensive shield to the trespass claim".
I did not overlook the matters referred to in [43] above. Those matters were referred to in the principal judgment at [18]-[19] and considered in the context of other issues raised for determination in the proceedings at [77]-[123] of the principal judgment.
I did not take those matters into account in the context of determining whether the Owners Corporation's title to the Airspace was subject to the implied easement of necessity because I did not consider that those matters were relevant to that issue. As I have explained above, the Murrells did not submit that they were relevant. Indeed, as I understood the Murrells' alternative submission, it relied on the circumstances per se and not any notations in registered instruments. If, as they now say, the Murrells intended to submit that an easement of necessity arose by implication from the registered instruments and is therefore enforceable against successors in title to the entity to whom ownership of the Airspace was transferred by the subdivision, that is a novel submission that is unsupported by authority and would have surprising consequences for the Torrens system of title by registration if accepted. It was therefore incumbent on the Murrells' legal representatives to make the intended substance of the submission clear during the final hearing, and to address the s 42 issue in some detail.
I have described it as a novel submission unsupported by authority because, on the hearing of the notice of motion, the Murrells were unable to refer the Court to any case law that provides direct support for the submission. The Murrells submitted that Hemmes Hermitage Pty Ltd v Abdurahman (1991) 22 NSWLR 343 was relevant by analogy. That case concerned the question whether s 42 of the Real Property Act precluded the owner of the dominant tenement of a registered right of way from enforcing against the registered owner of the servient tenement ancillary rights that were not included in the express terms of the right of way but that were implied as necessary for the enjoyment of the right of way (e.g. the right to go onto parts of the servient tenement outside the boundaries of the right of way for the purpose of making a right of way trafficable). The Court of Appeal held that such implied ancillary rights are just as much a part of the register as the express terms of the registered instrument. The Court therefore rejected the servient tenement owner's argument that its registered title was not subject to such implied ancillary rights.
Hemmes Hermitage does not address the question whether an implied easement of necessity that arises by operation of law at a particular time as a result of circumstances existing at that time burdens the indefeasible title of subsequent registered proprietors of the servient tenement merely because the relevant circumstances (or some of the relevant circumstances) can be ascertained from notations on registered plans.
As I have said above, it seems to me that the submission that the Murrells now seek to make (which they say that they intended to make at the final hearing) would have surprising consequences for the Torrens system of title by registration, if accepted. At the hearing of the notice of motion, senior counsel for the Murrells described the consequences as meaning that a prospective purchaser of the Airspace would become aware of the implied easement of necessity that the Murrells now submit is enforceable against the Owners Corporation and its successors in title by the following steps: " … would look at the folio for the common property … and the second schedule in item 3 refers to the land that I have described as "limited in stratum" in the manner described in the relevant plan of subdivision. If one would then go to the plan of subdivision, one would see that, from the plan of subdivision, the boundary at RL26, which is the relevant limit, if the stratum of that lot is at a level plane, about 130 millimetres above the roof slab, at 25.86. One would also see that there is a restriction expressly noted by "B", which would take one to the earlier DP to see the further reference to the concrete roof slab at RL25.87, indicated by the triangle "BM2". One would then see on the register that there is a very small margin between the top of the concrete roof, or the roof slab and the boundary. One would then consider the legal means by which the owner of part lot 21 would be able to undertake repairs and maintenance to the roof and one would see that there was, by necessary implication, an easement for that purpose, absent any legislation to permit access. The only other alternative being access for imminent danger or peril or applying to the court for an 88K easement."
The Murrells submitted at the hearing of the notice motion that, if the Court were to accede to their application to set aside the judgment in favour of the Owners Corporation in relation to the Murrells' trespasses into the Airspace and if the Court accepted the submissions referred to in [44] above, then the Court could make a declaration to the effect that Lot 21 has the benefit of an implied easement of necessity permitting the owners of Lot 21 to enter the Airspace on a temporary or transitory basis for the purpose of maintenance and repair of structures on Lot 21 below the height of RL 26.00 AHD. This illustrates just how remote the alternative submission, and the submissions now made by the Murrells, are from the manner in which they conducted the trial. As I have referred to earlier in these reasons, no such declaration was sought by the Murrells at any earlier time in this proceeding.

Application to set aside judgment refused

The public interest in the finality of litigation requires that great caution be exercised before setting aside a final judgment pursuant to UCPR r 36.16(3A). The exercise of the power generally depends on establishing that the judgment is affected by: 1. a misapprehension of fact or law that cannot be attributed solely to the neglect or default of the party seeking the rehearing; or 2. some relevant irregularity, such as where the Court has failed to deal with a significant part of a party's case or a party (through no fault of their own) has not had a proper opportunity to be heard about matters determined by the judgment. See Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (2013) 87 ALJR 1159; [2013] HCA 44, especially at [13]-[15] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Gageler JJ) and the authorities there referred to; Miller Heiman Pty Ltd v Sales Principles Pty Ltd (2017) 94 NSWLR 500; [2017] NSWCA 106 at [74] (Macfarlan JA, McColl JA and Sackville AJA agreeing).
I do not consider that the principal judgment is affected by any such misapprehension or irregularity. For all of the reasons that I have explained above, this is a case in which the Murrells apply to set aside part of the final judgment with which they are displeased and ask the Court to grant declaratory relief which they did not claim at the final hearing, on the basis of an entirely new submission that they now wish to make (as seems to me to be the case) or a significant reformulation of their alternative submission together with a new submission concerning the application of s 42 of the Real Property Act to an implied easement of necessity (adopting a more generous interpretation of the way in which the Murrells' alternative submission was expressed at the final hearing). In my opinion, it would be inconsistent with the public interest in the finality of litigation and the authorities referred to in [51] above to accede to the Murrells' application.
The Murrells accepted that there was no reason why they should not be ordered to pay the Owners Corporation's costs of the notice of motion if the Court refused the relief sought in prayer 2 of the notice of motion.

Conclusion and orders

For all of the reasons above, I make the following orders: 1. Prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of motion filed on 13 October 2020 by the plaintiffs in proceeding 2019/229582 are dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs in proceeding 2019/229582 (as the applicants on the notice of motion) are to pay the respondent's costs of the motion. 3. Extend the 14 day time period in each of Orders 8 and 11 made on 1 October 2020 to 14 days after the date of these reasons, being 17 November 2020.

Endnotes

Transcript, page 27 (line 40) - page 29 (line 29); see also principal judgment at [78]-[81].
Transcript, page 45 (line 23) - page 47 (line 19).
Transcript, page 29 (lines 20-29).
Transcript, page 24 (lines 33-50) and page 29 (lines 20-29).
Murrells' closing written submissions dated 13 May 2020, paragraphs 52-59.
Murrells' closing written submissions dated 13 May 2020, paragraph 57.
Murrells' closing written submissions dated 13 May 2020, paragraphs 58-59.
Transcript, page 256 (line 48) - page 257 (line 22).
Principal judgment at [103].
Transcript, page 257 (line 24) - page 258 (line 20).
Transcript, page 272 (lines 21-31).
Murrells' written submissions dated 12 October 2020, paragraphs 15 and 19. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 November 2020

The Owners - Strata Plan 85044 v Murrell; Murrell v The Owners - Strata Plan 85044

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (9)

Cited By (1)