Rupert St John Loftus-Brigham and another v Ealing LBC
Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWCA Civ 1490, 28 October 2003. Appeal against a county court decision which dismissed the claimant's claim for damages based on the allegation that E's tree roots were responsible for causing subsidence damages to claimant on the grounds that LB failed to prove that the trees were the dominant cause. The issues to be considered on appeal are i) what is the correct test if causation is to be established in a claim against a neighbouring tree owner in respect of subsidence arising from the extraction of moisture from the sub-soil and ii) did the judge apply that test or some other and different test. Causation in nuisance and in negligence discusses in paras 14-17 of the judgment. Paras 18-24 considers the basis of the judge's test in some depth. Appeal allowed. County Court decision is set aside. Action remitted to Central London County Court for a new hearing. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 125285-3001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE PUBLICATION Josie Rowland v Environment Agency | ONLINE PUBLICATION Tiffany Investments Ltd and another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No2) and others | ONLINE PUBLICATION Fengate Developments (a partnership) v Customs and Excise Commissioners | ONLINE PUBLICATION Rupert St John Loftus-Brigham and another v Ealing LBC | ONLINE PUBLICATION Sykes and another v Taylor-Rose and another | ONLINE PUBLICATION McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and another | ONLINE PUBLICATION Salaries under the spotlight |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1490, 28 October 2003. Appeal against a county court decision which dismissed the claimant's claim for damages based on the allegation that E's tree roots were responsible for causing subsidence damages to claimant on the grounds that LB failed to prove that the trees were the dominant cause. The issues to be considered on appeal are i) what is the correct test if causation is to be established in a claim against a neighbouring tree owner in respect of subsidence arising from the extraction of moisture from the sub-soil and ii) did the judge apply that test or some other and different test. Causation in nuisance and in negligence discusses in paras 14-17 of the judgment. Paras 18-24 considers the basis of the judge's test in some depth. Appeal allowed. County Court decision is set aside. Action remitted to Central London County Court for a new hearing. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.