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. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority’s request was reasonable.
Gazette 07-Sep-2000, Times 12-Oct-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000
England and Wales
Appeal from – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.90288