The claimants had bought houses from the first defendants, who in turn had bought the land from Rochdale, the second defendants. In preparing the land for construction the first defendants were said to have negligently filled in a drainage culvert so that the claimants’ properties were flooded by water flowing from the second defendant’s retained land, over the strip owned by the first defendants and onto the claimants’ properties. Rochdale appealed a finding of partial liability.
Held: The court regretted that the case should be continued in the face of a practical solution now available. Nevertheless though the necessary works could not be undertaken without access to the second defendant’s land, the judge had mistakenly exended this to a duty to contribute to the costs of the works. ‘Rochdale was not in the slightest degree responsible for the cause of the flooding but as a result of Barratt’s actions the only way of removing the hazard which resulted from the natural accumulation of rainwater at the south eastern corner of the retained land was to construct a catch pit on the retained land and pipe the water to the sewer by a different route. ‘
The duty asserted went beyond the duty as described in Leakey. Though Rochdale should not be dismissed from the case, their appeal succeeded.
May J P, Longmore LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 681, [2010] Env LR D8, [2010] 33 EG 72, [2010] NPC 69, (2010) 131 Con LR 29, [2010] BLR 527, [2010] 2 EGLR 59, [2010] 25 EG 103 (CS), [2010] JPL 1625
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Arscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
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 . .
Distinguished – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
Cited – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
Cited – Palmer and Another v Bowman and Another CA 27-Oct-1999
There is no easement of right for an owner of higher land for water naturally to drain off over neighbouring lower land, and nor was an easement required. The doctrine of lost modern grant need not be applied. Although the higher land owner had no . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Broder v Saillard 1875
. .
Cited – Hurdman v North Eastern Railway Co 1878
The defendants raised their land, so that the rain collected and penetrated an adjoining wall and ran into the plaintiff’s land, causing substantial damage.
Held: The heap or mound erected on the defendants’ land had to be considered as ‘an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Negligence
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.416761