Marc Christopher Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 80
Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council
8 May 2024
[2024] UKSC 15
Supreme Court
A neighbor's plant, Japanese Knotweed, spread onto Mr. Davies' property. Although the neighbor was slow to deal with it (causing legal trouble), the plant's damage already existed before the neighbor's wrongdoing. The court decided the neighbor wasn't responsible for the pre-existing damage to the property's value.
Key Facts
- •Marc Davies owned a house with Japanese Knotweed (JKW) encroachment from neighboring land owned by Bridgend County Borough Council.
- •Encroachment occurred well before 2004; actionable nuisance began in 2013 due to council's failure to address JKW.
- •Davies claimed £4,900 for residual diminution in land value after JKW treatment, citing market stigma.
- •Council argued that diminution predated the actionable nuisance (2013-2018), thus not caused by their breach of duty.
- •Lower courts dismissed Davies' claim; Court of Appeal reversed, relying on Delaware Mansions.
- •Supreme Court considered causation: whether residual diminution was caused by the council's breach of duty.
Legal Principles
In private nuisance, claimant must prove defendant's breach of duty caused the loss.
General principles of tort law
'But for' test for causation: would the loss have occurred without the defendant's breach?
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
Exceptions to 'but for' test exist for intentional torts; however, nuisance is not a strict liability tort.
Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co, R (Lumba) v Secretary of State, Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance
In continuing nuisance, the defendant's liability extends to harm occurring during the period of breach, even if some initial harm predated it.
Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001] UKHL 55
The tort of nuisance aims to protect the use and enjoyment of land, not its investment value; pure economic loss is generally not recoverable.
Williams & Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Outcomes
Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The residual diminution in value predated the defendant's breach of duty. The 'but for' test showed no causal link between the council's breach (2013-2018) and the pre-existing diminution.