CA 17 July 1987. Appeal by owner of cottage (S) against previous decision striking out her claim for damages against the defendant water authority (A) for negligence . A had extracted such quantities of water from underground reserves that part of S`s land collapsed. S alleged that A had been negligent in extracting water despite warnings that damage would result. At issue was whether A was entitled to extract underground water flowing through undefined channels, even if this caused damage to the land above. A number of authorities were considered and S sought to distinguish the decision in The Mayor and Corporation of Bradford v Pickles , (1895) AC 587, on two grounds : 1) In Bradford v Pickles HL had been concerned with the rights of the plaintiff, not with the duties of the defendant. CA did not accept that argument, pointing out that it was a necessary implication in Bradford v Pickles that HL, in referring to the rights of the defendant, must have negated any duty owed to the pl