It can get chilly in the sub-alpine reaches of Dovedale in the Moutere Valley near Nelson; as chilly as the relations between neighbours Carl Watters and Mark Mirkin over access to the Watters landlocked rural property.
With the Watters using informal access through Mr Mirkin’s property, police were called multiple times to arbitrate.
With both sides subsequently facing off in the High Court, a Property Law Act easement was ordered for a fully fenced gravel road through Mr Mirkin’s property with the High Court requiring Mr Watters pay all construction costs, plus compensation to Mr Mirkin.
The High Court was told Mr Watters and partner Leah Gibson purchased their property on Win Valley Road in 2020. They live on site with their children in a converted barn.
There is legal access to their property marked on survey plans with a ‘paper road’ about five hundred metres long. The last two hundred metres is impassable; traversing a steep hillside, a stream and a gully. The survey plan was drawn up in the 1880s with no apparent appreciation of local topography.
For decades, local practice has been to access what is now the Watters’ property by a one kilometre track, passing through three gates, crossing primarily through Mr Mirkin’s farm and to a small extent through another neighbouring property.
Mr Watters claimed he was told at time of his purchase that he had legal access through Mr Mirkin’s farm.
Multiple stand-offs between Mr Watters and Mr Mirkin saw a police-brokered arrangement which was then not honoured by the Watters.
In the High Court, Justice Grice said there was clear evidence the Watters had from time to time failed to close gates behind them.
With Mr Mirkin threatening use of trespass notices, the High Court made temporary orders allowing access on strict terms together with a monthly fifty dollar access fee.
Both sides agreed the Watters property was landlocked in a practical sense. No agreement could be reached on terms for access.
Using Property Law Act powers, the High Court imposed conditions for creation of a legal easement.
Mr Watters is to pay for a one kilometre gravel track, six metres wide with appropriate drainage channels, fenced on both sides with a post and batten fence. His is also to install and pay for a cattle stop at the road-side gate.
The gravel track alone was estimated to cost in excess of $80,000.
Mr Watters has worked as a fencer. He offered to build the required fences.
Justice Grice said this work can be done by Mr Watters only with Mr Mirkin’s consent. Failing that, outside contractors must be involved.
On-going maintenance costs are to be split 90:10, with Mr Watters to pay ninety per cent.
The High Court was told creation of this easement would increase the value of the Watters’ land by $150,000.
Justice Grice ruled part of this increased value be awarded to the affected landowners: $37,500 to Mr Mirkin; $15,000 to the second affected landowner.
The court ordered Mr Watters keep paying the current monthly access fee to Mr Mirkin until all required construction work is complete.
Watters v. Mirkin – High Court (29.08.25)
25.192