Walsh v Ervin
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Date | 1952 |
| Year | 1952 |
| Court | Unspecified Court (Australia) |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
18 cases
-
Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge
...of the public does not prevent the obstruction from constituting a public nuisance. This is further illustrated by the case of Walsh v Ervin [1952] V.L.R. 361 to which I shall come in more detail in a moment. In the present case access to certain parts of the estuary was significantly affec......
- Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge
-
(1) MBR Acres Ltd v John Curtin
...nuisance and the like imposed upon a person using the highway.” 75 An interference with this right is actionable per se: Walsh -v- Ervin [1952] VLR 361. The right is separate from the land-owner's right, as a member of the public, to utilise the highway itself: Ineos Upstream Ltd -v- Person......
- Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Public Nuisance and Climate Change: The Common Law's Solutions to the Plaintiff, Defendant and Causation Problems
...the case has long beenunderstood as settling the law after the divergent positions expressed in the 1535 decision:Wa ls hvErvin [1952] VLR 361, 367.28 Jane Stapleton r ightly observes that the standing rule cannot be concerned with multiplicityalone as the law has never shielded a defendant......