As pointed out in the proposition in at paragraph [74] Rainbowforce the requirement that the easement be necessary” does not “reasonably mean that there must be an absolute necessity and reduction in the “This quality of necessity to what is reasonable means that an easement may be able to be imposed although another means of right of way may exist….or possibly even when the land could be effectively used or developed without the easement…”. Cases such as involve competing alternatives, with the Stepanoski defendant advancing the argument that there is a preferable alternative. Naturally, these are issues to be explored at the conclave. The questions the experts should answer looms large in the proper management of such cases. Give your opponent’s case theory an adjectival designation In competing routes for storm water pipes were in sharp Stepanoski, two focus . I wanted to give the defendant’s proposal a name that would by the end of become an epithet. The alternative storm water route proposed by the defendant run diagonally underneath another neighbour’s property, bisecting it and hence crimping any possible future development (as Councils generally will not permit building over a storm water pipes) . I came up with the designation to express that what bisection” “diagonal the defendant proposed was clumsy . See [35] ff where his Honour commented as follows (re-ordered for this lecture): plaintiffs' proposal is the shortest and simplest and involves “The the least engineering work and it is unlikely to involve significant
As pointed out in the proposition in Rainbowforce at paragraph [74] the requirement that the easement be “reasonably necessary” does not mean that there must be an absolute necessity and “This reduction in the quality of necessity to what is reasonable means that an easement may be able to be imposed although another means of right of way may exist….or possibly even when the land could be effectively used or developed without the easement…”. Cases such as Stepanoski involve competing alternatives, with the defendant advancing the argument that there is a preferable alternative. Naturally, these are issues to be explored at the conclave. The questions the experts should answer looms large in the proper management of such cases. Give your opponent’s case theory an adjectival designation In Stepanoski, two competing routes for storm water pipes were in sharp focus . I wanted to give the defendant’s proposal a name that would by the end of become an epithet. The alternative storm water route proposed by the defendant run diagonally underneath another neighbour’s property, bisecting it and hence crimping any possible future development (as Councils generally will not permit building over a storm water pipes) . I came up with the designation “diagonal bisection” to express that what the defendant proposed was clumsy . See [35] ff where his Honour commented as follows (re-ordered for this lecture): “The plaintiffs' proposal is the shortest and simplest and involves the least engineering work and it is unlikely to involve significant
Easements-Jacobs-17-March-2015.docx