Elston v Dore [1982] HCA 71

Elston v Dore [1982] HCA 71

The respondent was not liable because filling in the long drain did not divert water onto the appellants' lands or interfere with a natural flow from those lands to his land; it merely closed an artificial drainage channel on his own land through which water would not naturally have flowed. The long drain was not a 'watercourse' within the meaning of The Water Act of 1926 Q., so unlawfulness under that Act was not established. The evidence did not support any licence granted to the appellants to use the drain.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Civil Action Concerning Drainage, Nuisance and Related Property Rights / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland Affirming Judgment for the Respondent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['private Nuisance' 'artificial Drainage Channel' 'artificial Watercourse' 'surface Water Drainage' 'beaudesert Principle' 'licence to Use Land' 'the Water Act of 1926 Q.']
['tort Law' 'property Law' 'water Law'] ['private Nuisance' 'artificial Drainage Channel' 'artificial Watercourse' 'surface Water Drainage' 'beaudesert Principle' 'licence to Use Land' 'the Water Act of 1926 Q.']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in a Civil Action Concerning Drainage, Nuisance and Related Property Rights / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland Affirming Judgment for the Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's filling in of the long drain constituted a nuisance by causing the appellants' lands to remain flooded." "Whether the respondent's conduct was unlawful under The Water Act of 1926 Q., as amended, so as to support a claim based on Beaudesert Shire Council v. Smith." "Whether the appellants had an irrevocable licence, or a licence revocable only on reasonable notice, to have water carried over the respondent's land by the drain."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not liable because filling in the long drain did not divert water onto the appellants' lands or interfere with a natural flow from those lands to his land; it merely closed an artificial drainage channel on his own land through which water would not naturally have flowed. The long drain was not a 'watercourse' within the meaning of The Water Act of 1926 Q., so unlawfulness under that Act was not established. The evidence did not support any licence granted to the appellants to use the drain.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']