The plaintiffs owned two collieries, worked as one. The defendant owned an adjacent reservoir, constructed in pursuance of a special Act, incorporating sections from the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847. Wanting to take their seams under the reservoir, the plaintiffs reached and agreement to do so, with the defendants agreeing not to fill the reservoir while the plaintiffs works their seams and for three years after. The minerals under the reservoir having been worked out, it was agreed that the three year period should begin from a certain date. At the end of that three years, the defendant’s having expressed their intention of refilling the reservoir, the plaintiffs began an action alleging that such contemplated action would seriously imperil their mines by flooding, and sought an injunction. The defendant objected that, having regards to the 1847 Act, could not be sustained.
Held: Section 27 of the Act left undertakers liable to all legal proceedings which before the Act had been open to others, for protection against damage or injury arising from the work actual or threatened; and, although the action was a quia timet action, an objection could not be sustained and the actions would lie.
Tomlin J considered the duties of an expert witness: ‘long cases produce evils . . In every case of this kind there are generally many ‘irreducible and stubborn facts’ upon which agreement between experts should be possible and in my judgment the expert advisers of the parties, whether legal or scientific, are under a special duty to the court in the preparation of such a case to limit in every possible way the contentious matters of fact to be dealt with at the hearing. That is a duty which exists notwithstanding that it may not always be easy to discharge.’ In such cases those concerned with the preparation of cases should more closely address their minds to restricting the areas of dispute.
Judges:
Tomlin J
Citations:
[1928] 1 Ch 31
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
First Proceedings – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation 1926
In cases involving expert evidence only two experts are to be heard on each side, unless the judge is satisfied that by reason of special circumstances justice cannot be done without hearing further expert evidence. This rule does not exclude either . .
Cited by:
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Appeal from – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation CA 1928
The plaintiff mine-owner having had a contract that the neighbouring land owner would not refill its reservoir which would result in its workings being flooded, and that contract having expired, now sought an injunction to prevent the reservoir from . .
See Also – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation HL 1929
The Act of 1893 provided that a successful defendant should be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client in an action in respect of ‘any act done in the pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619264