Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc: CA 30 Jul 2001

Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.


Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J


Times 02-Aug-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1236




England and Wales


Appeal fromWandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc QBD 2-Nov-2000
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority’s costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136156