Today’s case, Hardy v. Sidoti, [2020] NSWSC 1057 (Aug. 12, 2020) is — like yesterday’s — from a foreign jurisdiction, but this one (unlike yesterday’s) is not an eminent domain case. It’s just plain old property law. Adverse possession to be precise.

But because the court’s official summary puts it this way, we could not resist posting it here. It’s just so… Australian:

These proceedings concern two very Australian phenomena: the “dunny” and dedication to home improvement. At issue is the ownership of a 3.35 square metre remnant of a “dunny lane” in Redfern, a suburb of historic significance for First Australians and in the development of Sydney as a city.

Slip op. at 1. All that’s missing is a Hills Hoist clothesline out back.

First, some terminology. A “dunny” is what we in the U.S. would call an outhouse. A “dunny lane” is a path where the gong farmer (or “night soil man” if you prefer) would come round the back to empty out the dunny from time to time. Very understandable. You really didn’t want that guy coming round the front of your house, after all. These remnant of days gone by apparently in some areas have become quite fashionable and desirable (see here, for example, “From Dunny Lane to Secret Garden“)  which notes:

Sydney, like other cities and towns in Australia, is surrounded by narrow laneways that sit behind and beside old terrace houses. Affectionately known as dunny lanes, these alleys were designed as access points for the ‘night soil’ collector who had the somewhat unfortunate job of picking up the week’s worth of human deposits from each terrace’s outhouse. Now that we have advanced to sewerage systems, these narrow lanes are mostly abandoned, yet tell an important story about the city’s history.

The case involves the elements of a a claim of adverse possession (21 years is the prescriptive period, in case you were wondering), the proof necessary, and things like title under what the court calls the “old system conveyance,” along with a good dose of some very interesting localisms.

Like yesterday’s case, we’re not going to pretend we understand it all. But the opinion is a fascinating read. Especially what we think is a claim that adverse possession can’t run against Torrens titled property.

Short story: the dunny lane was adversely possessed. The claimant paved the land, removed a fence, and used the area to store gardening equipment, all against the title of the owner. Check it out.

Hardy v. Sidoti, [2020] NSWSC 1057 (S. Ct. New South Wales, Aug. 12, 2020)