000			01681cab a22003255a 4500
005			20240515103213.0
007			cu || ||||||aa
008			230423s2023 xxk oo | o000 0 eng |
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aDavies v Bridgend CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 80
260			_bCourt of Appeal, _c3 February 2023
520			_a[2023] EWCA Civ 80, 3 February 2023. No actionable nuisance was caused by knotweed on a defendant's land simply because it diminished the value of neighbouring land, even if the knotweed was close to the boundary and at risk of invading the neighbour's land: such a claim would be for pure economic loss. However, if the value of the neighbouring property was diminished as a result of an interference with quiet enjoyment or amenity, due to physical encroachment of knotweed from the defendant's land onto the claimant's land, damages for diminution in value of the property would be available.
520			_aJudge relied on other key case Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
520			_aAppealed in [2024] UKSC 15
650	2	4	_aJAPANESE KNOTWEED
650	2	4	_aNEIGHBOUR DISPUTES
650	2	4	_aDAVIES v BRIDGEND CBC
650	2	4	_aINVASIVE SPECIES
650	2	4	_aPRIVATE NUISANCE
650	0		_aLOSS OF AMENITY
650	2	4	_aLOSS OF ENJOYMENT
650	2	4	_aNETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD V WILLIAMS & ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aJAPANESE KNOTWEED AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
650	2	4	_aMARKET VALUE
651		4	_aUnited Kingdom
690			_aEnvironment _96238
690			_aValuation _96273
856	4	0	_uhttps://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/80 _zAvailable on caselaw archives
942			_n0 _2ddc
999			_c121478 _d121478