The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises.
Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they grew, and therefore could be liable in negligence, and in nuisance for the damage they might cause. The highway might also be responsible, but that did not exclude the responsibility of the respondent, who had a right and a duty to maintain the roads. The basis of liability of an occupier for a nuisance on his land is not his occupation but that, by virtue of his occupation, he has it in his power to take the necessary measures to prevent the nuisance. The tree owner should be given a reasonmable opportunity to remedy the nuisance: ‘ . . What is a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance is a question of fact. ‘
Aldous, Dyson LJJ
Times 21-Nov-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003,  1 WLR 427,  EWCA Civ 1723
England and Wales
Appeal Dismissed – L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council TCC 11-Mar-2002
Cited – Green v The Right Honourable Lord Somerleyton and others CA 28-Feb-2003
The parties owned areas of marshland divided by a road. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendants had no right to allow floodwater to escape over his land from what he said was an artificial reservoir on the defendant’s land. The . .
Cited – Moiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Negligence, Torts – Other
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178262