Grant v Baulkham Hills Shire Council

The case of Grant v Baulkham Hills Shire Council involved a dispute over the ownership of certain land located between the mean high water mark of the Hawkesbury River and a road. The plaintiff, Grant, claimed ownership of the disputed land, arguing that the land was part of a road, with one boundary being the mean high water mark of the Hawkesbury River. The defendant, Baulkham Hills Shire Council, asserted possession of the land, contending that the land had been filled into the river and thus did not form part of the road. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court centred on the determination of the true owner of the disputed land and the effect of the mean high water mark on the boundaries of the road. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the land in question was part of the road, and if so, whether the mean high water mark of the Hawkesbury River constituted one of the road's boundaries. Additionally, the court examined the evidence of whether there had been any changes to the road's boundary since the original survey.

The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the boundary of the road had been altered since the original survey. The court also determined that the land in question was part of the road, with one boundary being the mean high water mark of the Hawkesbury River. The court held that the land belonged to the council as it was part of the road, and therefore the mean high water mark constituted a boundary of the road. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for ownership of the land was dismissed.

The court ordered that the defendant, Baulkham Hills Shire Council, be declared the owner of the disputed land, and that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs. The court found that the mean high water mark of the Hawkesbury River constituted a boundary of the road, and that there was no evidence of any change to the road's boundary since the original survey. The plaintiff's claim for ownership of the land was therefore unsuccessful.