Robbins v London Borough of Bexley: CA 17 Oct 2013

The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which the council had not been obliged to do. This was a Bolitho type case, and the judge was to ask what would have happened if the Council had done something rather than nothing. However: ‘the judge was justified on the facts, and as a matter of the proper application of the rules of causation, in asking what the Council would in fact have done, had it taken reasonable steps to prevent the damage. The Council’s error is in assuming that the judge found the content of its duty was simply to undertake a particular 25% cyclical pruning regime, and that its breach was its failure to undertake such a regime. That is not, in my judgment, how the judge’s judgment is properly to be understood.’ The judge was perfectly justified in inferring that, if the canopy reduction works had taken place from 1998 onwards, they would, on a balance of probability, have been undertaken more severely than the later works orders envisaged.

Moore-Bick, Aikens, Vos LJJ
[2013] EWHC 1233 (Civ)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLeakey 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 . .
CitedSolloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .
CitedBolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiff suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest induced by respiratory failure as a child whilst at the defendant hospital. A doctor was summoned but failed to attend, and the child suffered cardiac arrest and brain . .
CitedDelaware 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 . .
CitedJoyce v Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority CA 1996
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘Thus, a plaintiff can discharge the burden of proof on causation by satisfying the court either that the relevant person would in fact have taken the requisite action (although she would not have been at fault if she had not) or . .
CitedBeary v Pall Mall Investments (A Firm) CA 19-Apr-2005
The independent financial advisor defendant had negligently failed to advise the claimant client about the possibility of taking out an annuity. However, the claimant would not have done so, unless he had been positively advised that he should. The . .
Appeal fromRobbins v London Borough of Bexley TCC 16-Aug-2012
The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by subsidence after dessication of the soil by trees under the defendant’s control.
Held: The defendants were liable. . .
CitedBerent v Family Mosaic Housing and Another CA 13-Jul-2012
The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by the roots of plane trees on neighbouring land for which the defendants were responsible. . .
CitedPhethean-Hubble v Coles CA 21-Mar-2012
The claimant cyclist suffered serious injury in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. The defendant appealed against a finding that he was two thirds responsible. The case for the injured cyclist was that the motorist was going too fast. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.516539