000			01899naa a22002537a 4500
008			240509e20240509xxk|||||o||||o00| 0 eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aDavies v Bridgend County Borough Council _b[2024] UKSC 15
260			_bThe Supreme Court, _c8 May 2024
520			_aSupreme Court judgment 8 May 2024. Were the lower courts correct to decide that loss suffered by the Respondent, in the form of diminution in value of the Respondent's property as a result of the encroachment of Japanese knotweed from the Appellant's land, was caused by the Appellant's breach of duty in failing to treat the knotweed, in circumstances where the encroachment first arose before the Appellant's breach? Decision, appeal allowed: the fact that the encroachment had existed when he bought the property, at a time before an actionable tort in private nuisance arose, meant that the neighbour's failure to treat the knotweed had not in fact materially contributed to the diminution in value. The application of the "but for" test eliminated the neighbour's subsequent breach of duty as a causative factor: the fact that the diminution in value would have occurred in any event meant that there was no causal link between the breach of duty and the diminution in value claimed.
520			_aJudges: Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Simler
520			_aJudgment appealed [2023] EWCA Civ 80
650			_aDAVIES v BRIDGEND CBC
650			_aJAPANESE KNOTWEED
650			_aINVASIVE SPECIES
650			_aNUISANCE
650			_aMARKET VALUE
650			_aNEIGHBOUR DISPUTES
650			_aNETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD V WILLIAMS & ANOTHER
650			_aRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
651			_aUnited Kingdom
690			_96266 _aResidential property
856			_uhttps://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0028.html _zJudgement available on the Supreme Court website
999			_c121927 _d121927