Extensive viticulture or agricultural management rights that include rights to enter, plant, maintain, harvest, market, sell produce and deduct costs cannot constitute a valid easement, as they fail both the accommodation requirement and the requirement that the right not substantially deprive the servient owner of proprietorship. Such rights are also not analogous to a profit à prendre (being a process of industry rather than a natural process) and cannot be recognised as a sui generis interest in land merely because the parties intended to create an interest in land. The decision confirms that the categories of easements, while not closed, cannot be extended to encompass what are in substance comprehensive commercial management arrangements over rural land.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.