Facts
- Dispute between the owners of properties No. 45 and No. 289 over the content and scope of a registered pedestrian and vehicular right of way in favour of property No. 45 over property No. 289. - The District Court had determined the width of the right of way to be 2.30 m, the appellants demanded an additional border strip. - The High Court had confirmed the determination of the right of way width of 2.30 m and dismissed the further claims of the appellants.Considerations
- The Federal Court notes that this is an unmeasured right of way, the content and scope of which are determined by the needs of the entitled property No. 45. - Based on the needs of the entitled property, a road of 2.70 m (carriageway of 2.30 m with a 20 cm side verge on each…