Richard van Brugge v Hare

The plaintiffs, Richard van Brugge and his wife, brought an action against the defendants seeking an injunction and damages. The dispute revolves around the plaintiffs' right to use an inclinator installed on the defendants' land, over which the plaintiffs hold a right of way. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the plaintiffs had an express or ancillary right to use the inclinator under the terms of the easement.

The court found that the easement did not expressly provide for the use of the inclinator. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the use of the inclinator was ancillary to their right of way, as there was no evidence that such use was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the easement. The court held that the plaintiffs' right of way was not impeded by the defendants' refusal to allow them to use the inclinator, as the plaintiffs could still access their property by foot or by vehicle on the existing road. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety.

The defendants were awarded costs of the proceedings on the standard basis. The court made no orders as to costs within the proceeding.