Case Summary: Watters v Mirkin – Easements and Landlocked Rural Properties

A recent High Court decision in Watters v Mirkin [2025] NZHC 2475 provides important guidance on the granting of easements under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA), particularly in the context of landlocked rural properties.

Key Facts

The plaintiffs, Watters and Gibson, own a rural property in Dovedale, Nelson, which contains a converted barn used as their home. While legal access exists via a paper road, it is unformed and prohibitively expensive to develop. The property is therefore considered “landlocked” in practical terms. For decades, the plaintiffs and previous owners accessed the property via a gravel farm track crossing the defendants’ land (Mirkin and the Wins).

Tensions escalated in 2024–2025 over gate management, alleged damage, and increased use. Mr Mirkin issued a trespass notice and initiated criminal proceedings. Interim access was granted by the Court in May 2025 under section 328 of the PLA.

The plaintiffs sought an order from the Court under section 327 of the PLA to access the landlocked land by way of a permanent easement over the defendants’ land.

Legal Framework

Sections 326 to 331 of the PLA govern applications for access to landlocked land.

Section 327(1) allows an owner or occupier of landlocked land to apply to the Court for an order granting “reasonable access.” Section 326 defines “landlocked land” as land to which there is no reasonable access, and “reasonable access” as physical access necessary for use and enjoyment under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Section 328(1) gives the Court discretion to grant access if it considers it just and equitable. In turn, section 329 lists mandatory considerations for the Court, including the nature of access at acquisition, how the land became landlocked, the conduct of the parties and hardship. Section 330 allows the Court to impose conditions, including compensation or land exchange. Finally, section 331 provides that the applicant must meet the reasonable costs of implementing access, though others may contribute if equitable.

These provisions establish a balanced framework that prioritises practical usability and fairness, allowing the Court to intervene where access is unreasonable or impractical.

Court Findings

The Court confirmed the property was “landlocked” under section 326 of the PLA and exercised its discretion under section 328 of the PLA to grant a permanent easement over the farm track. Justice Grice cited the impracticality and cost of forming the paper road, the plaintiffs’ need for vehicular access due to farming and family use, and the absence of any other reasonable access in support of the grant.

Although the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known there was no legal access at the time of purchase of the property, this did not disentitle them from relief but influenced the compensation awarded.

Conditions imposed by the Court

The Court imposed detailed conditions on the easement, including:

• Compensation: The plaintiffs had to pay $37,500 to Mr. Mirkin and $15,000 to the Wins, based on 35% of the increase in the plaintiffs’ property value due to the easement.
• Capital works: The plaintiffs had to fund and construct fencing, drainage, and cattle stops.
• Maintenance: Ongoing repairs split 90/10 between the plaintiffs and Mr. Mirkin. No contribution was required by the Wins as they use the farm track minimally and neither the plaintiffs nor Mr. Mirkin suggested they should contribute.
• Gate management: The plaintiffs had to keep gates closed at all times and are liable for damage caused by themselves or visitors.

The Court also directed the parties to agree on a timetable for works and oversight arrangements, with the option of appointing a third-party contractor if agreement could not be reached.

Key Takeaways for Property Owners

• Practical access prevails: Courts will prioritise practical usability over theoretical legal access when assessing landlocked status.
• Knowledge at purchase: Awareness of access issues may affect compensation but does not necessarily bar relief.
• Robust conditions: Where there is a history of conflict or non-compliance, courts are likely to impose detailed and enforceable conditions.
• Valuation evidence matters: Any compensation payments awarded are tied to the increase in property value and detriment to affected landowners. Therefore, valuation evidence is important to establish the market value of the land.
• Precedent: The judgment provides a useful precedent for rural access disputes and the balancing of competing landowner interests.

This case highlights the Court’s willingness to intervene pragmatically in access disputes, even where legal access exists on paper. It also signals that parties should not rely solely on technicalities. Practical realities and fairness will ultimately guide judicial discretion.

View the PDF version.