Stephens v Anglian Water Authority
Stephens v Anglian Water Authority
- 1987
- Weekly Law Reports (1987) 1 WLR 1381-1387(7) .
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
DUTY OF CARE
LIABILITY
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
DUTY OF CARE
LIABILITY