A Guide to Easements and Ancillary Rights - Part 2

Mark Evans • March 29, 2022

Introduction

Part One of this article discussed the nature of rights ancillary to the grant of an easement generally and more, specifically, issues like parking in the easement site. To read that article, click here.


This article follows Part One and discusses common issues like who is responsible for maintenance of the easement site, increasing or changing the use of an easement and liability for injury or damage while using the easement.

Ancillary rights and obligations

Maintenance of the easement site

Unless the terms of the easement dictate otherwise, an easement does not normally impose on the owner of the burdened land an obligation to repair or maintain the easement site: Jones v Price [1965] 2 QB 618.


Rather, the owner of the burdened land must not do anything that would obstruct or hinder enjoyment of the easement. If the owner of the benefited land wants to use the easement, it must do the work necessary to ensure the easement remains useable: Duncan v Louch (1845) 6 QB 904. To that end, the owner of the benefited land has an implied right to enter the burdened land to do whatever is reasonably necessary to ensure continued use of the easement, but may not broaden or enlarge the ambit of the easement: Zeneare v Leate (1980) 1 BPR 9300.


The owner of the benefited land must not access the burdened land in a way that interferes with the use of the burdened land any more than is reasonably necessary. While there may be a right for the owner of the burdened land to be consulted and provide input, ultimately the choice of method of work or maintenance proposed remains with the owner of the benefited land: Burke v Frasers Lorne Pty Ltd (2008) 14 BPR 26,111. The rationale being that in performing maintenance, the owner of the benefited land is exercising its rights under the easement and will be the party responsible for paying for the maintenance.


In limited circumstances, the owner of the benefited land may be liable for damage to the burdened land where failure to maintain the easement results in damage to the burdened land. For example, if the owner of benefited land fails to maintain pipes laid on the burdened land resulting in leakage, the owner of the benefited land may be liable for damage caused by escaping water: Comserv (No 1877) Pty Ltd and another v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWSC 302.

Enlarging and changing use

As a general rule, provided the owner of the benefited land seeks to use the easement in accordance with the terms of its grant, the owner of the servient tenement may not object to an increase in that use. Like all general rules though, this rule is subject to exception and the increased user of the easement must not be excessive: Twomey v Blanch (2008) 14 BPR 26,145.


Rights of carriageway can become contentious where the use of the benefited land changes or that land is sought to be subdivided. The terms of the easement are not constrained to the use to which the easement was put at the time of the grant. For example, the use of a right of carriageway for the passing of cars to and from a single house may be expanded where the house is converted to a boarding house or lodge: White v Grand Hotel, Eastbourne Ltd [1913] 1 Ch 113; Graham v Philcox [1984] QB 747. Similar considerations arise with respect to subdivision of the land benefited by an easement. The owner of the burdened land may not object to an increase in use where the subdivision of the benefited land results in increased use of the easement site by virtue of the increase in new owners. The easement registered on the title to the benefited land will pass down to the newly created lots when the benefited land is subdivided and new titles are created.


In Sertari Pty Ltd v Nirimba Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 324, the NSW Court of Appeal held that an owner of burdened land was not entitled to withhold its consent in relation to a development application for the proposed construction of residential buildings comprising 236 units and underground parking for 351 vehicles on the benefited land. The development would greatly increase the traffic on the right of way over the burdened land during the construction phase and afterwards. In that case, the Court held that the terms of the grant were clear and since the easement was a right “for all purposes and at all times to pass and repass” all new owners in the residential subdivision were entitled to use the right of carriageway and questions of excessive use did not arise. 

Liability for injury or damage

Another question that commonly arises is the liability of the owner of burdened land for injury or damage suffered by a person whilst exercising their rights under the easement while on the burdened land. This is a complex subject and extends beyond the realms of easements and property law into personal injury and negligence. Again, the terms of the easement itself will be important, for example requirements in relation to insurance and indemnities. Generally speaking, (if the easement is silent on the issue) the owner of burdened land would only be liable for injury/damage to a person entering that land under the easement where the owner of the burdened land is negligent. That is, under the laws of negligence, a landowner has a duty of care not to cause injury to people or their property. The level of this duty is that of a reasonable person, exercising foresight and caution. If the owner of the burdened land fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm where the risk of harm is not insignificant and damage or an injury is suffered, they could be held liable for damages.

Conclusion

Whilst seemingly simple, easements often raise complex questions of interpretation and particularly with regard to ancillary rights and obligations.


Answers to these questions are not always straightforward and will depend heavily on the individual circumstances of each case.


If you wish to discuss this blog or have any questions regarding easements or other property law related issues please contact Mark Evans on detail below.



Require further assistance? please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 9145 0900 or make an enquiry below.

A man in a suit is sitting on the steps of a building.

Servicing all of NSW, Whiteacre provides expert property law and planning and environment law advice and assistance.

Planning Law Advice

Land and Environment Court Appeals

Voluntary Planning Agreements and Contributions

Development Control Orders and Enforcement

Property Development Advice and Due Diligence

Title Structuring

Easements and Covenants

Strata and Community Title legislation

Book an initial consultation through our website with our planning law solicitor. Whether it's about planning and environment law or property law, you can approach us and discuss your matter to make sure we are a good fit for your requirements.

BOOK ONLINE
By Mark Evans May 4, 2025
This article provides a general overview of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, followed by a discussion of the tax implications of establishing a biodiversity stewardship site for Councils. What is the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme? The NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (the Scheme ) is a market-based scheme that is administered by the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ( Department ) and aims to help address the loss of biodiversity and threatened species in NSW. It seeks to do so by creating incentives for landowners to improve or maintain biodiversity values as a means of offsetting impacts on other areas. The Scheme is established by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ( BC Act ) . How the Scheme works Councils can establish a ‘biodiversity stewardship site’ ( Stewardship Site ) on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement ( Stewardship Agreement ) with the Department: s 6.17 BC Act. In doing so, Councils commit themselves to enhancing and protecting biodiversity values on the Stewardship Site. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits which are created by the Department. The amount of biodiversity credits are calculated by the Council’s accredited ecologist (and verified by the Department) in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Biodiversity Assessment Method ( BAM ): s 6.7 BC Act. Biodiversity credits are created in respect of existing biodiversity values on the land and management actions to be carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. A biodiversity credit remains in force unless it is cancelled or retired: s 6.18 BC Act. The market value of the biodiversity credits is calculated by the Department at the time of creation. Sale and transfer of biodiversity credits Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer (or in parcels to a number of buyers) seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. The sale price of the biodiversity credits is determined by agreement between the Council and the buyer. Alternatively, biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 : s 7.15 BC Act. The Council may transfer biodiversity credits to a buyer or third party: s 6.19 BC Act. The transfer is made through an application to the Department by the parties to the transfer. The transfer is not effective until the transfer is authorised by the Department and registered in the register of biodiversity credits: s 6.20 BC Act. On the registration of the first transfer of the biodiversity credits, the Total Fund Deposit ( TFD ) specified in the Stewardship Agreement (or a proportion, if not all the credits are transferred) is required to be paid by the buyer of the biodiversity credits into the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund (the Fund ): s 6.21 BC Act. The TFD is a fixed amount of money used to cover the long-term management costs of a Stewardship Site. It is a calculated value representing the present value of future payments needed to fund the agreed management actions. Contracts for the sale of biodiversity credits between the Council and purchasers will state that the credit owner is entitled to the full amount of the agreed sale price of the biodiversity credits, including the TFD, and that the credit owner will have the obligation to pay the TFD. Once the credits have been ‘used’ to offset negative biodiversity impacts and to permanently secure the conservation of biodiversity, they are ‘retired’ such that they can no longer be used for any other purpose: s 6.27 BC Act. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement: s 6.34 BC Act. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund can help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity conservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement. Capital Gains The ATO deems that a capital gains event (type D4) occurs on entry into a Stewardship Agreement: s 104-47(1) ITAA. The landowner makes a capital gain if the “capital proceeds” are more than that part of the “cost base” of the land that is apportioned to the covenant. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on entry into Stewardship Agreement When the Department and the Council enter into a Stewardship Agreement, the Council makes a taxable supply by entering into the agreement in return for the biodiversity credits issued by the Department and the Department makes a taxable supply of biodiversity credits in return for the Council entering into the agreement. These are non-monetary transactions. The Department and the Council (if both are registered for GST): are required to pay GST in respect of their supply, calculated on the estimated value of the credits; and can claim an input tax credit (ITC) in respect of the tax invoice received from the other party. If a Council is registered for GST, the Department will issue a Department GST invoice and Recipient Created Tax Invoice (RCTI) on behalf of the Council when the Department sends the registered BSA to the Council. The Department will use the estimated market value of the biodiversity credits for the purposes of these invoices. As the GST payable and the input tax credit that can be claimed are the same amount, the net GST position for both the Council and Department is zero. This means that these invoices do not need to be paid. However, both the Department and the Council are required to account for the GST payment and the input tax credit in their business activity statements (BAS). Capital gains from sale or transfer of credits A CGT event (type A1) occurs upon the sale of biodiversity credits. The Council may make a capital gain or loss depending on the capital proceeds and cost base of the credits: s 104-10(4) of the ITAA. A biodiversity credit constitutes a CGT asset: s 108-5 of the ITAA. CGT event (type A1) happens when the Council disposes of biodiversity credits: s 104-10 of the ITAA. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA. GST on sale of biodiversity credits For the purposes of GST, the sale of credits is a taxable supply of goods. This means that the biodiversity credit price should include GST that the Council then needs to pay to the ATO. Receipt of annual payments from the Biobanking Trust Fund Annual payments from the Fund made by the Department to the Council are a contractual payment for the performance of services and should be ordinary income and assessable for income tax purposes. Most state and federal government departments, including local councils are tax exempt: s 50.25 ITAA . GST on annual payments The supply of stewardship services by the Council to the Department in return for payment of the annual payment should be a taxable supply. The Department will issue a recipient created tax invoice (RCTI) and include an amount for GST when making the annual stewardship payments for management actions the Council delivers. Conclusion Councils can establish biodiversity stewardship sites on eligible land within NSW by means of entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements with the Secretary of the Department. On execution of a Stewardship Agreement, the Council is entitled to receive an amount of biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits may be sold by the Council to a buyer seeking to offset the impact of actions detrimental to biodiversity or to permanently secure conservation outcomes. Biodiversity credits may be used by Council to offset negative biodiversity impacts arising from an activity carried out by Council. Some of the proceeds of the sale of biodiversity credits must be paid into the Fund to cover ongoing management actions and costs. Annual payments are made out of the Fund to the Council in respect of management actions carried out in accordance with the Stewardship Agreement. Management actions typically include obligations to fence areas of land, control exotic pest species, carry out bushfire management and weed management. In summary, annual payments made out of the Fund could help Councils meet the expenses they currently incur managing large tracts of land while achieving significant biodiversity preservation outcomes. Disclaimer This is a general overview of the Scheme and tax implications. The information in this article is general in nature and is intended as a guide only. It is not designed to be, nor should it be regarded, as legal or accounting advice. The business and financial structure for each landholder or entity managing a biodiversity stewardship site or conservation area is likely to be unique. Therefore, the way taxation law applies will depend on individual circumstances and you should consult a professional tax adviser before engaging with the Scheme or entering into a Stewardship Agreement.
Navigating Land and Environment Court
By Mark Evans March 20, 2025
Expert Legal Insights on Development Approvals and Appeals with Planning Lawyer Mark Evans
Physical Commencement of Development Consents
By Mark Evans February 27, 2025
Development consents granted after 15 May 2020 face stricter requirements to determine whether they are substantially commenced and thus remain valid. This article reviews recent case law in New South Wales (NSW) and outlines the types of work that can qualify as physical commencement.
shared driveways
By Mark Evans February 13, 2025
Shared driveways A common example of a shared driveway is where a right of carriageway passes through one neighbours’ (burdened) land into the other neighbour’s (benefited) land.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 27, 2024
In Part 1, we considered tiny homes and caravans on private land. That article can be accessed here Part 1 . In Part 2, we turn our attention to tiny homes and manufactured homes.
tiny homes
By Mark Evans November 22, 2024
In this article we explore tiny homes, caravans, and manufactured homes.
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson November 14, 2024
The general rule is that a development application ( DA ) is to be determined based on the law applicable at the time of determination of the DA, not at the time of lodgement: Sofi v Wollondilly Shire Council (1975) 31 LGERA 416.
When subdivision may not be considered development carried out on land
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 31, 2024
Subdivision, alone, may not constitute development “on land” and thus trigger development restrictions. 
Biodiversity Credits
By Mark Evans October 18, 2024
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a summary of workshops and stakeholders’ submissions concerning the functioning of the NSW Biodiversity Credits Market.
Development
By Mark Evans and William Jamieson October 10, 2024
It is now well established that a development consent cannot be obtained to authorise works that have already been carried out. The classic example is a building that has been built without development consent.
More Posts