Image from Google Jackets

Robins and another v Tupman and another

Language: English Series: Structural Survey ; 11(4) Spring 1993, 401-408(8)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 October 1992. R claimed nuisance and negligence against neighbours T for installing an inadequate drainage system which leaked onto R`s land. In 1978 the common owner Miss Blenham B conveyed the house, garden and northern part of land including septic tank but not the soakaway to T. The conveyance did not contain any express grant of an easement of drainage from the septic tank to a soakaway on another part of the land. In 1978, B conveyed another part of the land to R. R built a bungalow and garage and after severed the drain from T`s septic tank and requested them to stop using the system. T constructed an alternative system in 1982 and their claim for £2,358.69 to cover the cost from R was allowed. From 1984, R complained of problems arising from the new system. CA dismissed R`s claim on the grounds that it was R`s obstruction of easement of drainage which was the cause of the nuisance. It was recognised that T had taken reasonable steps to rectify the problem by installing
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article Z3414 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 52890-1001

CA 19 October 1992. R claimed nuisance and negligence against neighbours T for installing an inadequate drainage system which leaked onto R`s land. In 1978 the common owner Miss Blenham B conveyed the house, garden and northern part of land including septic tank but not the soakaway to T. The conveyance did not contain any express grant of an easement of drainage from the septic tank to a soakaway on another part of the land. In 1978, B conveyed another part of the land to R. R built a bungalow and garage and after severed the drain from T`s septic tank and requested them to stop using the system. T constructed an alternative system in 1982 and their claim for £2,358.69 to cover the cost from R was allowed. From 1984, R complained of problems arising from the new system. CA dismissed R`s claim on the grounds that it was R`s obstruction of easement of drainage which was the cause of the nuisance. It was recognised that T had taken reasonable steps to rectify the problem by installing