Category: More

How Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) Shaped Native Title Law

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) was the first major Australian case testing Indigenous land rights. It is commonly called the Gove land rights case.

Case Name & Citation: Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141

  • Court: Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Australia)
  • The Learned Judge: Blackburn J (Justice Richard Blackburn)
  • Date of Decision: 27 April 1971
  • Area of Law: Native Title / Aboriginal Land Rights, Property Law

What happened in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd?

A group of Yolngu (Aboriginal) people from the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory of Australia took the mining company Nabalco (and the government) to court.

The Commonwealth Government granted a 42-year mineral lease to Nabalco Pty Ltd over parts of the land occupied by the Yolngu without their consultation.

The Yolngu brought an action in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory seeking a declaration that they held a communal native title and could prevent the mining.

They wanted the court to recognise their traditional rights to the land and to stop bauxite mining there.

Key Issue

Whether the Yolngu peoples’ traditional rights to land were recognised in Australian common law.

Court’s Decision in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and decided on 27 April 1971 by Justice Blackburn.

He rejected the Yolngu’s claim that Australian common law recognised their communal native title.

Even if such rights might have existed, they had been extinguished by the mining lease/Mining Ordinance or laws.

Although he accepted that Yolngu had a complex, structured system of law and a strong spiritual and economic connection to the land, the judge said the common law at that time did not recognise those rights as proprietary land title.

Blackburn J held the rights were not proprietary because the Yolngu system expressed spiritual and kinship obligations to land, rather than exclusive, alienable, enforceable ownership rights of the kind recognised by the common law. The nature of the Yolngu relationship to land was based on ancestral identity, ritual responsibility, and spiritual obligation, not ownership.

Why this case matters?

It was the first major Australian court case about Aboriginal land rights and native title. That made it a landmark even though the Yolngu lost.

Although the decision went against the claimants, it acknowledged the existence of traditional law and custom and thus helped pave the way for later developments in Indigenous land rights.

This case helped shape political change and law reform (for example, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976) and eventually influenced later court decisions about native title (like Mabo).

The case’s position was overturned by the Mabo v Queensland (No 2) decision in 1992, which recognised native title in Australian law and rejected the idea that Australia was terra nullius.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights
Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916]: Case Summary

The case King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916] deals with the distinction between a license and an interest in land, holding that a license is only a personal right and does not bind third parties.

Case Name: King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

  • Court: House of Lords (UK), 1916
  • Citation: [1916] 2 AC 54; [1916] UKHL 1
  • Date: 14 February 1916
  • Judges (Law Lords): Lord Buckmaster (Lord Chancellor), Earl Loreburn and Lord Atkinson
  • Area of Law: Property Law, Proprietary Rights vs Contractual Rights

Facts of the Case (King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd)

Mr. King owned land where a picture palace (cinema) was going to be built.

Before the cinema was built, he made a contract with David Allen & Sons (a billposting/advertising company). In this contract, King gave them permission to put posters on one wall of the cinema for 4 years, in return for payment.

Later, King leased the land and building to a cinema company, but this lease did not mention David Allen & Sons’ advertising right.

The cinema company refused to allow David Allen & Sons to put up posters.

So, David Allen & Sons could not use the wall, even though they had an agreement with King.

Legal Issue

Did the contract give David Allen & Sons an actual interest in land (like a lease or easement) that would bind the new tenant?

Decision in King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

The Court held that the contract was only a license — a personal/contractual right, not a proprietary right. It did not create a lease or easement (no legal interest in the wall).

So, it did not bind the new cinema company.

However, King had promised to give the advertising space. By leasing the property without protecting that right, he made it impossible for the poster company to use the wall.

Therefore, King breached the contract. He had to pay damages to David Allen & Sons.

Key Principle (What the Case Is Known For)

A license is only a personal right. It does not create an interest in land and does not bind future owners or tenants. If the licensor later makes it impossible to honour the license, this amounts to a breach of contract, for which the licensor is personally liable in damages.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1916/1.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights
What Armory v Delamirie 1722 Tells Us About Finder’s Rights?

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Louth v Diprose [1992]: Unconscionable Conduct in Equity Law

Louth v Diprose (1992) is a seminal High Court of Australia case on unconscionable conduct in equity. Given below is a quick analysis of the case.

Citation: [1992] HCA 61; (1992) 175 CLR 621; (1992) 110 ALR 1
Court: High Court of Australia
Date: 02 December 1992
The bench: Mason CJ; Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Legal Focus: Unconscionable conduct, Special disadvantage, Equity

Facts – Louth v Diprose

The respondent (Diprose) was a solicitor, emotionally infatuated with the appellant (Louth). Louth was a divorced woman with two children, living in financial difficulty. They met in 1981. Diprose was deeply in love, but Louth was indifferent, treating him only as a friend. Diprose lavished her with gifts, paid bills, and also school fees for her children.

Louth lived in a house owned by her brother-in-law at low rent. In 1984, Louth suggested she might lose her rented house at Tranmere due to her sister’s separation. She told Diprose she would commit suicide if forced to vacate.

Diprose, believing her, bought the house in her name for $58,000 (entirely from his funds), intending to give her security.

In 1988, after their falling out, he demanded the house be transferred to him. Louth refused.

Legal Proceedings

At Trial (King CJ, Supreme Court of South Australia): Held it would be unconscionable for Louth to retain the property; ordered transfer of house to Diprose.

On Appeal (Full Court SASC): Majority upheld the decision (Matheson J dissenting).

High Court of Australia: Louth appealed.

Issue

Was the transfer of money (used to buy the house in Louth’s name) a gift obtained through unconscionable conduct that equity should set aside?

High Court’s Judgment in Louth v Diprose

Majority (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron, McHugh JJ):

Dismissed the appeal.

Diprose was under a special disability (emotional dependence/infatuation). He was emotionally dependent on Louth, leaving him vulnerable. Louth knowingly exploited this by manufacturing a false crisis and threatening suicide. This was unconscionable conduct; she could not, in good conscience, retain the benefit.

Equity may set aside a transaction if one party is at a special disadvantage, the other party knows of and exploits it, and the result is a transaction unconscionable to enforce or retain.

Special Disadvantage is not limited to poverty, illness, or ignorance. It includes emotional dependence or infatuation, where it undermines rational judgment.

Toohey J (Dissent):

Would have allowed the appeal.

Thought Diprose acted with full knowledge and appreciation of his actions.

Outcome:

The High Court held that Louth’s manipulation of Diprose’s emotional infatuation, through false crisis and suicide threats, amounted to unconscionable conduct, making it inequitable for her to retain the house.

Legal Significance

This case expanded the scope of special disability to include emotional infatuation. It reinforced that equity intervenes not to save someone from their own foolishness, but to prevent victimisation. Diprose’s act wasn’t set aside simply because buying the house was unwise. It was set aside because Louth created a false crisis and used suicide threats, exploiting his emotional dependence.

The case illustrates how relationships of emotional dependence can give rise to equitable relief.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Solle v Butcher [1950]: Equity & Mutual Mistake
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984]

MORE FROM EQUITY & TRUSTS:

Solle v Butcher [1950]: Equity & Mutual Mistake

Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671

Solle v Butcher (1950) is a foundational case in English contract law. It focusses on the principles of equitable mistake and the possibility of rescission on equitable grounds.

Solle v Butcher taught that if both parties make a fundamental mistake, equity (fairness) might allow the contract to be voided on fair terms, even when common law keeps it binding.

Facts of the Case: Solle v Butcher

Mr Charles Butcher (landlord) leased a flat in Maywood House, Beckenham, to Mr Godfrey Solle (tenant) at £250 per year. Both parties believed the Rent Acts did not apply.

In fact, the Rent Acts did apply, meaning the statutory regulated rent was capped at £140 per year, unless proper statutory notice had been served. That notice had not been served.

Solle sought repayment for the excess rent paid.

Butcher counterclaimed, arguing that, due to a common mistake, the lease should be rescinded or cancelled. Both parties made the same mistake about rent regulation.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Court of Appeal (majority) held there would be no repayment of the excess rent paid.

However, the lease could be rescinded, meaning it could be cancelled—but “on terms”—specifically, Solle could either choose to remain in the flat at the full contractual rent (£250) with proper notice served or to terminate the lease and vacate the flat.

Lord Justice Denning asserted that while the contract was valid at law, it was voidable in equity. He said that a contract can be set aside in equity if the mistake was common and fundamental (both parties were equally wrong about the effect of rent control), and the party seeking rescission was not at fault. The court could impose fair terms in rescission.

Lord Justice Denning stated as under:

“A contract is liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension … provided the misapprehension was fundamental and the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.”

Legal Significance (Solle v Butcher)

This case established that while a contract may remain valid at common law, equity can render it voidable and subject to fair terms. However, this doctrine was later doubted and rejected in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (2002), which restricted the scope of equitable rescission.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust
Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 14

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights

Given below is a summary of the Queen’s Bench decision in Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851), one of the leading English cases on the law of finders of lost property.

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJQB 75; [1843-60] All ER Rep 122
Court: Court of Queen’s Bench
Judges: Patteson J and Wightman J
Date: 19 June 1851
Legal Focus: Property Law – Finders of lost property – Rights of finder vs occupier of premises

Facts: Bridges v Hawkesworth

In October 1847, the plaintiff (Bridges), a travelling salesman, visited the defendant’s (Hawkesworth’s) shop. While leaving, he noticed a parcel lying on the floor inside the shop. It contained banknotes worth £65.

Bridges showed the parcel to a shopman and requested the defendant to keep it until the true owner appeared.

The defendant advertised the discovery, but no one came forward for three years.

Bridges then asked for the return of the notes, offering to pay advertising costs and indemnify the defendant.

The defendant refused, claiming ownership of the notes.

The County Court judge found for the defendant.

Issue

Who had the superior right to the lost banknotes?

Judgment in Bridges v Hawkesworth

Finder’s rights prevail.

The fact that the notes were found inside the shop did not remove the case from the general rule that: “The finder of a lost item acquires a valid title against all except the true owner.” Armory v Delamirie (1722) was cited.

Bridges never intended to abandon his claim when he gave the notes to the shopkeeper.

The defendant acted merely as agent of the finder in advertising and safeguarding the notes. As the true owner was never located, Bridges’ title was paramount.

Judgment of the County Court was reversed.

Legal Principle

The place where a lost item is found does not alter the general rule: the finder acquires rights against everyone except the true owner, unless the premises’ occupier had prior possession or control over the item.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne (2007): Property Rights
Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

What Armory v Delamirie 1722 Tells Us About Finder’s Rights?

Armory v Delamirie [1722] is a seminal English case that holds that—if you find something lost, you can keep it against everyone except the real owner, and the person who wrongs you is responsible.

­Case Citation: Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664

  • Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)
  • Date: 31 July 1722
  • Judge: Pratt C.J.
  • Legal Focus: Property law, Law of finders, Employer liability, Trover (tort)

Facts: Armory v Delamirie

A chimney sweep boy (the plaintiff) found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith’s shop (the defendant) to determine its value.

The goldsmith’s apprentice removed the stones from the jewel under the pretext of weighing it, then offered the boy a few pennies for it.

The boy refused and asked for the jewel back.

The apprentice returned only the socket, without the stones.

Legal Issues

Can the finder of a lost item maintain an action for trover (claim for conversion of personal property)?

Is the master responsible for the actions of his apprentice?

How should the value of the jewel be determined if it is not returned?

Court’s Decision in Armory v Delamirie

Finder’s rights: The finder of a jewel does not gain full ownership, but has sufficient rights to keep it against everyone except the true owner. Thus, the finder can maintain a trover action.

Liability of the master: The master is liable for the actions of his apprentice.

Value of the jewel: Since the jewel was not returned, the jury was instructed to presume it was of the highest quality and assess damages accordingly.

Significance

The case establishes the principle that a finder has rights against all except the true owner. It also confirms that an employer (master) is responsible for the acts of employees (apprentices) done in the course of their work. It further provides guidance on calculating damages when stolen or withheld property is not returned.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia
Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne (2007): Property Rights

Given below is a clear and simple summary of the case Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 311.

Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 311; (2007) 20 VR 311

  • Court: Supreme Court of Victoria – Court of Appeal
  • Judgment Date: 21st December, 2007
  • Judges: ASHLEY and DODDS-STREETON JJA and CAVANOUGH AJA
  • Legal Focus: Trespass to land, Encroachment into airspace, Damages or Injunction, Property Law

Background: Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne

Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd (the appellant) owned a 12-storey office building.

PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd (the respondent) owned the neighbouring property, which included the heritage-listed MCG Hotel and vacant land for development. In the future, PCH wanted to build a multistorey building up to the edge of its land.

Break Fast had added metal cladding to its building, which protruded 3–6 cm into PCH’s airspace.

PCH argued this was a trespass and sought removal. Break Fast argued it was minor (“trifling”), and damages should be paid instead of a mandatory injunction.

Trial Court Decision

The trial judge found that the cladding did encroach into PCH’s airspace and this was not trivial.

Since the encroachment interfered with PCH’s future potential to build up to the boundary, it was a serious trespass.

It granted a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the cladding.

Appeal Arguments by Break Fast

Break Fast argued the trespass was small and trivial.

Damages should replace the injunction.

Removal would cost about $300,000, causing hardship.

They also offered undertakings to remove cladding if ever PCH developed its land.

Court of Appeal’s Findings (Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne)

Trespass was confirmed – even small intrusions into airspace can be trespass if they interfere with the ordinary use of land.

It was not trivial – the cladding prevented PCH from fully using its land for future development.

Damages were not appropriate – allowing damages would mean Break Fast effectively “buys” rights over PCH’s land without consent.

Hardship ($300k cost) did not outweigh PCH’s rights.

The Court applied the “good working rule” from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co.—injunctions are the prima facie remedy for trespass, and damages are awarded only in exceptional cases. For example, if the trespass is trivial, easily compensable in money, and an injunction would be oppressive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the mandatory injunction requiring Break Fast to remove the cladding.

Key Legal Principle

Even a small building intrusion (just a few centimeters) into a neighbor’s airspace can be trespass. Courts usually order removal (injunction) rather than just awarding damages, because property rights are strongly protected.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2007/311.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia

Perry v Clissold deals with whether a person in exclusive possession of land, though not the paper owner, is entitled to compensation when the Crown resumes the land for public purposes.

Court: Privy Council (Appeal from the High Court of Australia)
Citation: (1906) 4 CLR 374; [1907] AC 73
Original Case: Clissold v Perry, [1904] HCA 12; (1904) 1 CLR 363
Privy Council Decision: 1906
High Court Decision: 20 June 1904
Legal Focus: Property Law – Possession vs. Ownership, Right to Compensation for Resumed Land

Facts of the Case: Perry v Clissold

The Crown (government) wanted to acquire some land for a public school under the Lands for Public Purposes Acquisition Act 1880 (NSW), which later became part of the Public Works Act 1900.

Frederick Clissold was in exclusive possession of the land. He had fenced it, rented it out, paid taxes, and acted like the owner, though the actual owner was unknown.

The government resumed (took over) the land and initially refused compensation to Clissold’s executors after his death, claiming Clissold had only a “possessory title” (not true ownership).

The Supreme Court of NSW sided with the Minister, denying compensation.

The High Court of Australia reversed that, saying Clissold’s possession created a prima facie case for compensation.

Legal Issue

Whether a person in exclusive possession of land (even if not the true owner) is entitled to compensation when the government resumes it for public purposes.

Decision in Perry v Clissold

Privy Council upheld the High Court decision, dismissing the appeal.

1. A person in peaceful possession as owner has rights against everyone except the true owner.

2. If the true owner never claims the land, the possessor’s title eventually becomes absolute.

3. The Act intended compensation for anyone deprived of land, even if the true owner is unknown.

4. The land’s valuation should be done as of the date of government notification.

Lord Macnaghten said as under:

“It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”

Outcome:

The claimants (Clissold’s executors) were entitled to a valuation of the land and could claim compensation. The government could not deny compensation just because Clissold was not the true owner.

Right to Compensation

Even if someone doesn’t legally own land but has been living on it and acting as the owner, the government must pay compensation if it takes the land for public use. The fact that the real owner is unknown doesn’t stop this.

List of References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law
Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway Co (1856) is about whether a person in possession of goods can sue for conversion against a wrongdoer, even if a third party might have a better title.

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway Co (1856) 5 El & Bl 802; 119 ER 680

  • Court: Court of Queen’s Bench (with consideration in Exchequer Chamber)
  • Areas of Law: Trover (conversion of goods), Property and possession, Jus tertii defence (third-party rights)

Key Facts: Jeffries v The Great Western Railway

The plaintiff, Jeffries claimed ownership of certain trucks under an assignment from Owen and was in actual possession. The defendants, Great Western Railway also claimed the trucks under a later assignment from Owen and seized them.

The defendants argued the plaintiff’s assignment was fraudulent (and that Owen’s assignees or the trustee in bankruptcy had the better right). They argued that Owen had become bankrupt before Jeffries took possession, so the goods vested in Owen’s bankruptcy assignees, and therefore Jeffries had no title.

Issue

Can a defendant who seizes goods from the person in possession avoid liability in trover by proving that a third party (e.g. a trustee in bankruptcy) actually had title (i.e. raise a jus tertii defence)?

Judgment in Jeffries v The Great Western Railway

The court held for Jeffries. The leading principle (Lord Campbell CJ) is that “a person possessed of goods as his property has a good title as against every stranger” — so a possessor in actual possession can recover against a wrongful taker; a wrongdoer cannot simply defeat the claim by pointing to the superior third-party title (jus tertii) unless the defendant can show he is claiming under that third party (e.g., acting for the assignees). The defendants were not claiming under the bankruptcy assignees, so they could not set up the assignees’ title as a defence. The judge was right to exclude the jus tertii defence in the facts of this case.

Legal Significance

This case is frequently cited in contexts about finders/possessors, conversion, and limits on the jus tertii defence.

It establishes the important practical rule in personal-property law: possession creates a sufficiently good title against wrongdoers — the possessor’s remedy is against the immediate wrongdoer, not against a hypothetical superior owner.

List of References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 is a leading English case on remedies for breach of restrictive covenants. Here’s a summary of the case.

Case Name: Jaggard v Sawyer and Another
Citations: [1995] 2 All ER 189; [1995] 1 WLR 269; [1995] 1 EGLR 146; [1995] 13 EG 132; [1994] EGCS 139; [1994] EWCA Civ 1
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
Judges: Sir Thomas Bingham MR (Master of the Rolls), Kennedy LJ, Millett LJ
Date: 18 July 1994
Areas of Law: Property Law, Restrictive Covenants, Trespass, Injunctions vs. Damages

Facts of the Case: Jaggard v Sawyer

Ashleigh Avenue in Dorset was a private cul-de-sac developed with 10 houses, subject to restrictive covenants binding all owners.

Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer (defendants) owned No. 5 and wanted a larger home. They bought land behind their property (from 13 Bull Lane) to build a new house (No. 5A). They created a driveway through their existing garden to give No. 5A access to Ashleigh Avenue.

Mrs. Jaggard (plaintiff), owner of No. 1, objected, arguing that the driveway breached covenants. The use of Ashleigh Avenue by No. 5A was trespass (since the road was private).

Despite objections, the Sawyers built No. 5A. By the time proceedings were brought, the house was nearly complete.

County Court Decision

The trial judge held Ashleigh Avenue was indeed private. The Sawyers’ use of it was trespass and breach of covenant. But instead of granting an injunction (which would effectively make No. 5A landlocked), the judge awarded damages in lieu under s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981.

Damages were assessed at what a reasonable sum would have been for release of the right of way: £6,250 (split among residents).

Mrs. Jaggard appealed, insisting an injunction should have been granted.

Court of Appeal Decision (Jaggard v Sawyer)

The appeal was dismissed.

Normally, a person whose property rights are infringed is entitled to an injunction.

However, following Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895], damages may be substituted if the injury is small, measurable in money, can be adequately compensated by money, and an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant.

The Court of Appeal held all four conditions were satisfied here. Extra traffic from one additional house was minimal. Mrs. Jaggard’s concerns could be addressed with money. An injunction would have been oppressive, since it would render No. 5A useless and destroy the Sawyers’ home.

Outcome:

Mrs. Jaggard’s appeal was dismissed. The Sawyers kept access to No. 5A via Ashleigh Avenue, but had to pay damages.

Key Principles Applied in this Case

Courts have discretion (under Lord Cairns’ Act and s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981) to award damages instead of injunctions, especially where an injunction would be disproportionate.

Shelfer test provides a framework for when damages should replace injunctions.

Courts will consider the reality at the time of trial—if a building is already complete, courts are reluctant to order remedies that destroy it.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/1.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW: