Legal Research
Cases
Nelson v Walker

Nelson v Walker

Case [1910] HCA 27 6 June 1910

Appeal

Injunction

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Property Law

Negligence & Tort

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

10 CLR 560

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MELBOURNE, May 24, 25,

Vendor and purchaser - Derogation from grant-Implied grant-Quasi-easement-

Rain water flowing over surface - Adjoining owners-Naturalservitude-Altera- - tion of surface-Transfer of Land Act 1890 (Vict.) (No. 1149), sec. 89-Con- veyancing Act 1904 (Vict.) (No, 1935), sec. 6.

In order that the grant to a purchaser of a right in the nature of an ease- ment in respect of land of the vendor may be implied from a conveyance of part of a parcel of land of which the vendor retains the balance, it must appear, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to have been in the contemplation of the parties that the grautor should not use the land which he retains in a manner inconsistent with the enjoyment of the alleged

10 CLR 561

By Griffith C.J. and O'Connor J. (contra by Isaacs J. and Higgins J. If the principle that an owner of land is bound to receive the rain water naturally flowing over the surface of adjoining higher land is part of the common law, it applies to the case of land the surface of which has been altered by the hand of man or otherwise during unity of title and possession and before severance, as well as to land the original natural surface of which has not

By Griffith C.J. and O'Connor J. That principle, if it is part of the com- mon law, applies only to country lands and not to town lands.

By O'Connor J. (semble by Griffith C.J.): That principle is not part of the common law and the owner of the lower land may prevent such water from flowing on to his land.

Quare, per Higgins J., whether land held under the Transfer of Land Act 1890 is subject to a natural right on the part of the proprietor of adjoining

Per Higgins J. If there is any right such as is declared in Vinnicombe V. MacGregor, it must be confined, as in the case of a defined stream, to water spreading over the natural surface of the land but under the word "natural" surfaces (or river beds) which have been changed beyond living memory should

The ground of "derogation from grant" was not open to the plaintiff on the appeal, as the case was based from first to last on natural right, and the grant (the transfer) was not even put in evidence.

In this case, however, no grant of right to let water flow through the defendant's land is to be implied and, semble, no such grant is to be implied (so as to bind successors in title) from circumstances not referred to in the

Vinnicombe v. MacGregor, 28 V.L.R., 144; 24 A.L.T., 15 29 V.L.R., 32; 24 A.L.T., 200, discussed and opinion therein doubted.

In 1895 A., the owner of allotments 12 and 13, which were two of four township allotments lying side by side, containing about 25 perches each, and being…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Nelson v Walker

Details

AGLC: Nelson v Walker [1910] HCA 27
Case: [1910] HCA 27
Decision Date: 6 June 1910

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Nelson v. Walker* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the obstruction of rainwater flow between two adjoining allotments of land, owned by the appellant (Mary Nelson) and the respondent (George James Walker). The respondent sought an injunction to compel the appellant to remove a dam she had erected on her land, which he claimed wrongfully obstructed the natural flow of surface water from his land onto hers, causing accumulation and damage.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the owner of lower-lying land was legally bound to accept the natural flow of surface rainwater from an adjoining higher-lying property, particularly when the land's surface had been altered by human intervention. This question involved considering whether a principle akin to a "natural servitude" from Roman civil law, as previously interpreted in Victorian cases, formed part of the common law of England and Australia, and if so, its applicability to altered surfaces and urban land. A secondary issue concerned whether a grant of such a right could be implied from the circumstances of the land's severance and transfer.

The High Court, in a majority decision, held that no such implied grant of a right to the continuance of the flow of surface water could be inferred from the conveyance of the land. The Court considered the principle that an owner of land is bound to receive rainwater naturally flowing from higher land. However, a majority of the judges, including Griffith C.J. and O'Connor J., expressed doubt as to whether this principle was part of the common law, and if it were, they stated it applied only to country lands, not town lands. They also indicated that the principle did not apply when the land's surface had been artificially altered. Isaacs and Higgins JJ. dissented on various grounds.

Ultimately, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. It was held that the respondent was not entitled to a mandatory order directing the appellant to remove the dam. The Court found that no grant of a right to allow water to flow through the appellant's land could be implied, and that the appellant was not bound to accept the flow of surface water from the respondent's land.

Orders