The landowner objected to the proposal of the second respondent to grant, in favour of the first respondent, a wayleave to lay cables through tunnels owned by the claimant landowner.
Held: The tunnel structure was properly seen as land within the Act, and the way-leaves were properly granted. The argument that the meaning of the word ‘land’ must be restricted so as to avoid bizarre conclusions did not work. The right granted applied to all the subsections, or to none of them. Wayleaves through structures on or under land did not differ.
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178201