CityLink claims a part of Brunswick West property by way of squatters’ rights

CityLink was later made the only defendant within the Supreme Court docket after a settlement was reached with the opposite events.

The pair sought damages, in addition to an order for components of the wall to be eliminated in order that it now not sat on their land.

Nevertheless, CityLink argued that it had claimed possession of the property underneath hostile possession legislation, in any other case often known as squatters’ rights.

Below the legislation, squatters can declare a chunk of land provided that they’ve uninterrupted and unique possession of it for 15 years.

The Bottos brothers argued that this 15-year interval was interrupted in 2012 by a planning allow utility to assemble six items on the property.

However the precise situation of the wall encroaching on the land was not found till 2018 when the event was happening, the court docket heard.

In 2021, Supreme Court docket Decide James Gorton agreed that CityLink had efficiently possessed the piece of land beforehand owned by the Bottos brothers.

“For my part, by constructing the noise wall, CityLink factually possessed, and factually dispossessed the Bottos brothers of the area bodily occupied by the noise wall and its help buildings,” he wrote in his causes.

“CityLink used the land occupied by the construction as if it have been its personal.”

Loading

The court docket heard that CityLink had not meant to adversely possess the property.

As a part of their case, the Bottos brothers argued {that a} spillage of concrete in the course of the set up of the wall had additionally trespassed onto their property.

Whereas he dismissed the remainder of their declare, Gorton awarded the brothers $69,035 in damages for the spillage, which was three metres lengthy by 1.5 metres huge.