Hampshire Automotive Centre Pty Ltd (ACN 064 799 328) v Centre Com (Sunshine) Pty Ltd (ACN 084 165 293) and Rayking Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 100 334 209)

Hampshire Automotive Centre Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed their claim for an easement by prescription over a service road. The defendants, Centre Com (Sunshine) Pty Ltd and Rayking Investments Pty Ltd, opposed the appeal, arguing that the original claim was defective and that the question of whether an easement existed was not properly before the Court. Hampshire Automotive Centre contended that the Court should have found that an easement by prescription existed over the service road, without requiring the consent of the head landlord, which is a statutory corporation.

The central legal issue was whether the consent or authority of the head landlord was necessary to establish or enforce a prescriptive easement. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether an easement could be claimed on behalf of a head landlord who was a statutory corporation. Hampshire Automotive Centre argued that the requirement of the head landlord's consent to establish a prescriptive easement was not supported by the law, and that the head landlord's consent was not needed to establish or enforce such an easement. The defendants maintained that the Court should not have considered this question as it was not properly before the Court.

The Court found that the requirement of the head landlord's consent to establish a prescriptive easement was not supported by the law. It held that the consent of the head landlord was not necessary to establish or enforce a prescriptive easement, and that the head landlord's status as a statutory corporation did not preclude the claim of an easement on its behalf. The Court noted that the question of whether an easement existed was not properly before it, as there were no relevant facts relating to the creation, use, or abandonment of the easement. The Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered a retrial of the matter.

The Court made no findings as to whether an easement existed, but ordered a retrial to determine the existence of the easement by prescription.