The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that they had obtained an easement or covenant entitling them to domestic water from a well on the respondents' property.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the obligation to supply water was a positive covenant requiring the expenditure of money and the doing of acts, which does not run with the land.
The court also rejected the argument that a binding perpetual contract existed between the parties.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
