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.