Trevlind v BMP Manufacturing

In the case of Trevlind v BMP Manufacturing, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant held an easement in gross over land owned by the plaintiffs. The dispute arose from the construction of drainage works by the Council, which the plaintiffs claimed should be considered an easement in gross. The court was required to determine whether the drainage works constituted an easement in gross, and if the easement was 'land' held within the meaning of section 51 of the Local Government Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the easement created appurtenant to an existing public road constituted an easement in gross. The plaintiffs argued that the easement was an easement in gross as it was created for the benefit of the Council. However, the court held that an easement in gross could be created pursuant to sections 88B(2)(a) and (3)(a) of the Conveyancing Act, but the instrument setting out the terms of the easement specified lots and a public road to be benefited. Since the Council was not named as a body to be benefited, the easement was not an easement in gross. Furthermore, the court found that 'land' refers to physical land in this context and 'to hold' requires more than an entitlement to use land for drainage purposes.

The court concluded that the drainage works installed by the Council were not an easement in gross, as the easement was not created for the benefit of the Council. Additionally, the court found that the easement was not 'land' held within the meaning of section 51 of the Local Government Act, as it required more than an entitlement to use land for drainage purposes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the easement was not an easement in gross and was not 'land' held within the meaning of the Local Government Act.

The court made a declaration that the defendant did not hold an easement in gross over the plaintiffs' land, and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs.