Lord v McMahon

The case of Lord v McMahon involved a dispute between two rural property owners over the construction of a dam and table drains on land close to their boundaries. The plaintiff, Lord, alleged that the defendant, McMahon, had trespassed onto Lord's land by placing batter from dam construction on Lord's land, and that table drains built near the boundary had concentrated surface water, causing erosion of Lord's property. The court was required to decide whether the defendant's conduct amounted to trespass, nuisance, or both, and whether there were any defences available to the defendant. The court also had to consider whether an easement should be granted under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 to authorise the maintenance of the batter on Lord's land.

The court held that the placement of batter on Lord's land amounted to a trespass, and that the defendant's conduct had permanently altered Lord's land. The court found that there was no evidence of consent from Lord to the placement of batter on his land. The court also found that the table drains did not amount to a nuisance as they did not cause significant harm to Lord's property. The court held that an easement could be granted under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 to authorise the maintenance of the batter on Lord's land, and that an earthen dam wall was a 'building' under the Act. The court also held that injunctive relief could be granted upon conditions as to the sharing of the cost burden of the relief.

The court ordered that McMahon pay damages to Lord for the trespass and that an easement be granted to McMahon to authorise the maintenance of the batter on Lord's land. The court also ordered that the cost of the injunctive relief be shared between the parties. The court found that there was no basis for a claim of proprietary estoppel as there was no evidence of a representation or assumption by Lord that McMahon had an equitable interest in his land. The court declined to admit tender of evidence at a late stage in the proceedings as it would have caused unfairness to the defendant.