The applicants sought an order for the removal of a gate obstructing a shared right-of-way and an injunction against further interference.
The respondents argued the gate was for security and brought a motion to strike parts of the applicants' affidavits.
The court granted the applicants' motion to strike scandalous allegations from the respondents' affidavits, finding them irrelevant.
The court then determined that the gate constituted a substantial interference with the applicants' right-of-way, particularly for vehicular access, and rejected the respondents' security justification as insufficient.
The court ordered the gate's removal and restrained the respondents from further obstruction.