Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council
[2024] UKSC 15
Marc Christopher Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council
3 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 80
Court of Appeal
A neighbor's knotweed invaded Mr. Davies' property. The court ruled that the council was responsible for the damage and must pay for the decrease in the property's value, even though the initial invasion happened before the council was officially negligent. The court clarified that it wasn't simply about property value, but the actual damage to the property from the knotweed itself.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Davies' property adjoins land owned by Bridgend County Borough Council.
- •Japanese knotweed from the Council's land encroached onto Mr. Davies' property.
- •Mr. Davies sued the Council for nuisance.
- •The District Judge found the Council liable for nuisance from 2013 to 2018 due to failure to treat the knotweed.
- •The only remaining claim was for £4,900 in residual diminution in value of the property.
- •Lower courts dismissed the claim based on Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514.
- •The appeal concerns the recoverability of diminution in value damages in nuisance cases involving knotweed.
Legal Principles
Private nuisance is a violation of real property rights, encompassing interference with legal rights or land amenity.
Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
In nuisance from encroachment, damage is formally required but often presumed; physical damage isn't necessary for amenity interference.
Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
Nuisance can stem from inaction; an occupier is liable for continuing nuisance if they fail to take reasonable steps to stop it.
Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
The tort of nuisance is not simply to protect the value of property as an investment; it protects the use and enjoyment of the land.
Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
Pure economic loss (loss without physical damage or interference) is not actionable in nuisance; however, damage to economic interests resulting from physical interference is recoverable.
Williams v National Rail [2018] EWCA Civ 1514; Clerk & Lindsell
A continuing nuisance allows recovery of reasonable remedial expenditure, even if the initial encroachment predates the breach of duty.
Delaware Mansions [2002] 1 AC 321; Goldman v Hargrave
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Lower courts misinterpreted Williams v National Rail; diminution in value resulting from physical encroachment is recoverable as consequential damage, not pure economic loss.
Respondent's notice dismissed.
Causation argument rejected: the continuing nuisance caused persistent harm despite historic encroachment; evidence for £4,900 residual diminution in value deemed sufficient.