Delaware Mansions Ltd v City of Westminster

Last updated

Delaware v. City of Westminster
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case nameDelaware Mansions Limited and Others v. Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster
Decided25 October 2001 (2001-10-25)
Citation(s)[2001] UKHL 55
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting

Delaware v. City of Westminster ([2001] UKHL 55) is an English court ruling on nuisance, addressing the question of liability for repairing damage caused by tree roots. The court upheld a ruling of the Court of Appeal, stating that if a defendant knew about a continuing nuisance (in this case, cracking caused by tree roots), and had been given notice and opportunity to deal with it but failed to do so, then a claimant was entitled to receive costs for removing the nuisance themselves. It is a leading case in the Law of Nuisance, Trees and Forestry. [1]

Contents

Delaware was the last case in which Lord Cooke of Thorndon sat as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

Background

The freehold owners of the Delaware Mansions, a block of flats in Delaware Road, Maida Vale (at 51°31′34″N0°11′26″W / 51.526224°N 0.190482°W / 51.526224; -0.190482 ), had received complaints of cracking in the building in 1989. An engineer's inspection that winter concluded that this was due to the roots of a large London plane tree outside the building, and recommended it be removed; if it could not be removed, then the foundations would need underpinning. A second report a year later made the same conclusions, with more urgency. [2] Eventually, in October 1991, Westminster Council - the owners of the tree - cut back the roots, and through January–July 1992 Flecksun - the freeholders - carried out a program of structural underpinning to stabilise the building. [3] The total costs to Flecksun came to just over £570,000, and they sued Westminster, as owners of the tree, for compensation. [4]

The issue was complicated by the fact that, until June 1990 - just before Westminster was first notified of the damage - the freehold to the estate was owned by the Church Commissioners; the sale did not contain any mention of the right to legal action for nuisances. [5] Westminster contended that if they were liable, then Flecksun could only sue for "fresh" damages caused by the tree after the transfer; only the Commissioners could sue for the existing damage. [6]

The case was initially heard by the Official Referees' Court, where Recorder Derek Wood QC dismissed Flecksun's claim (as well as that of Delaware Holdings, their parent company). Flecksun took the case to the Court of Appeal, where a panel of judges (Beldam, Pill, and Thorpe LLJ) granted the appeal, allowing Flecksun to claim the £570,000 damages along with a further £265,000 in interest. Westminster appealed, sending the case to the House of Lords. [7] The case has been discussed extensively by Jason W. Neyers in his paper "Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Final Appeal." [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon</span> New Zealand judge (1926–2006)

Robin Brunskill Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon, was a New Zealand judge and later a British Law Lord and member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is widely considered one of New Zealand's most influential jurists, and is the only New Zealand judge to have sat in the House of Lords. He was a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong from 1997 to 2006.

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means something which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

In English criminal law, public nuisance was a common law offence in which the injury, loss, or damage is suffered by the public, in general, rather than an individual, in particular.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Donald Nicholls, Baron Nicholls of Birkenhead</span>

Donald James Nicholls, Baron Nicholls of Birkenhead, was a British barrister who became a Law Lord.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lennie Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann</span> British and South African judge (born 1934)

Leonard Hubert "Lennie" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann is a retired senior South African–British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009.

Peter Julian Millett, Baron Millett,, was a British barrister and judge. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1998 to 2004.

<i>Gibson v Manchester City Council</i>

Gibson v Manchester City Council[1979] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case in which the House of Lords strongly reasserted that agreement only exists when there is a clear offer mirrored by a clear acceptance.

Sir Malcolm Thomas Pill is a former Lord Justice of Appeal, who was the longest-serving member of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upon reaching mandatory retirement at age 75.

<i>Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the ignis suus principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence.

<i>Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd</i>

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14 is an English tort law case on the subject of private nuisance. Several hundred claimants alleged that Canary Wharf Ltd, in constructing One Canada Square, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal. The House of Lords held unanimously that such interference could not amount to an actionable nuisance; the nuisance was equivalent to loss of a view, or of a prospect, which had never previously been actionable.

<i>Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)</i>

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.

A v Hoare, [2008] UKHL 6, is a leading tort case in British law, decided by the House of Lords in 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

<i>Huang v Home Secretary</i>

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.

Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, 1 C.C.L.T. 233 (1976) was a Canadian personal injury case involving negligence, standard of care, causation, and hindsight.

Jason W. Neyers is a Canadian legal scholar and professor at the University of Western Ontario.

<i>Watkins v Home Office and others</i> UKHL appeal with important implications for the tort of misfeasance in public office

Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

References

  1. ↑ Mynors, Charles (2002). The law of trees & forestry. London: Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN   0421590408.
  2. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 6-8
  3. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 9-10
  4. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 3-4, 9-10
  5. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 5
  6. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 11
  7. ↑ [2001] UKHL 55, para 3-4
  8. ↑ Neyers, Jason W. (2002). "Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Final Appeal". Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. 2 (2): 265–270(6).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.