Australia, Jan. 17 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement Dec. 18:

1. This is the sixth judgment in these long-running easement proceedings between neighbours in the Sydney suburb of Lugarno. This judgment deals with two remaining issues: (1) what part of the interlocutory regime first ordered to de-escalate tensions between the parties on 1 August 2022 should now be continued; and (2) what specified gross sum costs order should be made to give effect to the costs orders made in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The determination of these questions requires reference back to several of the Court's prior judgments. As to the first issue for determination, the interlocutory regime of orders ("the interlocutory orders") was first imposed on the parties for the reasons of the Court gave in Clough v Breen & Anor [2022] NSWSC 1026. Minor variations were subsequently made to the interlocutory orders.

3. As to the second issue, on 9 April 2024 the Court delivered its fifth judgment: Clough v Breen (No.5) [2024] NSWSC 337 ("Clough No.5"). That judgment ordered the first defendant, Mr Breen, to pay a total of $28,000 in aggravated and exemplary damages in respect of three incidents the subject of the Court's earlier findings of tortious conduct against Mr Breen. Clough No.5 also ordered the defendants to pay 60% of Ms Clough's, the plaintiff/cross-defendant's, costs of the proceedings to date: Clough No.5 at [59]. The present judgment addresses whether a specified gross sum costs order should be made in respect of the costs order in Clough No.5, and if so, what should be the quantum of that order.

4. This judgment should be read with the Court's previous judgments in these proceedings. Those judgments are all listed in Clough v Breen (No. 4) [2023] NSWSC 1155 at [6] - [8] ("Clough No.4"). Events, matters and persons are referred to in this judgment in the same way as they are in the previous judgments.

5. The Court had the benefit of evidence and written submissions from the parties and heard short oral submissions on the two issues for determination. The parties continued to engage the same lawyers as they did at the main hearing. Mr D. O'Connor and Ms C. Langford of counsel, instructed by Michael Sommerville of Redmond Hale Simpson Solicitors & Barristers, appeared for the plaintiff/cross-defendant, Ms Clough. Mr F. Maghami and Mr M. McGirr of counsel, instructed by Charlotte Morson, of Morson Law Litigation Lawyers appeared for the defendants/cross-claimants, Mr Breen, and Ms Dillon.

6. The interlocutory orders have been slightly modified since 1 August 2022. On 19 April and 4 May 2023, the interlocutory orders were varied in relation to the operation of the Sinking Fund. On 18 July 2024, Order 7 was varied so the references to Landing 3 and Landing 4 to replace them with references to Landing 4 and Landing 5, to correct a mistake in the original orders.

7. The issues have also been reduced since Clough No.5 in several ways. By agreement between the parties, work has now been done to relocate the inclinator call button at Landing 1 onto a post at that landing but fixed on Lot 118. And Mr Breen and Ms Dillon have indicated that they no longer wish to pursue their Cross Claim for upgrading or replacing the inclinator.

8. Supplementary relief has been sought and made by agreement, since the interlocutory orders were first made. For example, orders have been made on what is in substance a without admissions basis that Mr Breen and Ms Dillon not park a vehicle to obstruct the doorway leading from the street to Easement D by parking or placing any object within 1 metre of the said doorway.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193d7473f0070f4f31a1d6e8)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.