The respondent was responsible for a canal which overflowed onto the claimant’s land causing damage to the claimant’s business providing christmas trees. The defendant criticised the lack of accounting records.
Held: The claimants operated under a tax scheme which left their income exempt, and so the absence of records was not sinister. The assertion by the defendants was startling. They accepted that some 13,500 trees had been lost, but that the claimant had suffered no loss. The claimants had established their losses.
Her Honour Judge Frances Kirkham
 EWHC 3094 (TCC)
England and Wales
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.237607