Wandsworth LBC v Railtrack plc
Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [2001] 1 WLR, 23 February 2001, 368-386(19)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: QBD 31 July 2000. Inconvenience was caused to pedestrians by pigeons, roosting under a railway bridge, who fouled the pavement below. The highway authority (B) incurred escalating costs through cleaning the pavement. B had permission to pigeon-proof the bridge but claimed the responsibility lay with A. In court proposed B was liable to them in public and/or private nuisance, and claimed reimbursement for cleaning costs. "Held", allowing the claim, that the pigeon infestation represented a public nuisance. Ruled there was no difference between nuisances involving physical damage and those interfering with comfort and inconvenience.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS63742 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111455-1001 |
QBD 31 July 2000. Inconvenience was caused to pedestrians by pigeons, roosting under a railway bridge, who fouled the pavement below. The highway authority (B) incurred escalating costs through cleaning the pavement. B had permission to pigeon-proof the bridge but claimed the responsibility lay with A. In court proposed B was liable to them in public and/or private nuisance, and claimed reimbursement for cleaning costs. "Held", allowing the claim, that the pigeon infestation represented a public nuisance. Ruled there was no difference between nuisances involving physical damage and those interfering with comfort and inconvenience.