A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second appellants in 1990 for andpound;1. . The flats were subject to long leases and the first appellant company had been formed to act as the maintenance and service company for the tenants, who owned the company. The second appellant company was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the first appellant company.
In 1989, there were reports of cracking in parts of the structure of the blocks and engineers were instructed on behalf of the first appellants. The engineers submitted a brief report and this was followed by further investigation. At a time after the second appellants had become freeholders, the appellants’ expert opinion was disclosed to the council. The engineers believed, as the judge put it, that ‘either the tree should be felled or the property should be underpinned’. The cost of remedial work if the tree had been felled was very small and, it is common ground, can be ignored for present purposes. The removal of the tree would have ended the nuisance. Thr court was asked whether the Council was liable in uisance.
Beldam, Pill, Thorpe LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1903, 68 Con LR 172, (2000) 32 HLR 664,  BLR 1,  46 EG 194,  3 EGLR 68
England and Wales
Appeal from – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Negligence, Nuisance
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135827