000			01503cab a2200181 4500
001			##ABS67552
008			040302n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125285
245	0	0	_aRupert St John Loftus-Brigham and another v Ealing LBC
260			_c2004
520			_a[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.
590			_aABS
650	2	4	_aLOFTUS-BRIGHAM AND ANOTHER V EALING LBC
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBlock management _96220
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2017/loftus-brigham.htm _zView judgment on the Court Service website...
942			_n0
999			_c74205 _d74205