Material matters that get to the root of the problem
Series: Architects' Journal ; 218(22) 18/25 December 2003, 50(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Examines the the increase in claims for subsidence damage caused by tree roots, after the long, dry summer of 2003. In "Rupert St John Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1490, unreported) the judge held that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden of proving that cracks in their house caused by subsidence resulted from desiccation of the sub-soil attributable to the root activity of the council's trees. Experts agreed that the creepers at the front of the house had at least contributed to the damage. On appeal, the claimants argued that the judge applied the wrong test and should have concluded that the council's trees were an effective and substantial cause of the subsidence. A rehearing has been allowed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS67396 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 125070-1001 |
Examines the the increase in claims for subsidence damage caused by tree roots, after the long, dry summer of 2003. In "Rupert St John Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1490, unreported) the judge held that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden of proving that cracks in their house caused by subsidence resulted from desiccation of the sub-soil attributable to the root activity of the council's trees. Experts agreed that the creepers at the front of the house had at least contributed to the damage. On appeal, the claimants argued that the judge applied the wrong test and should have concluded that the council's trees were an effective and substantial cause of the subsidence. A rehearing has been allowed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.