header-logo header-logo

05 July 2018
Issue: 7800 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Property
printer mail-detail

Japanese knotweed claim upheld

nlj_7800_news_1

Court rules in favour of homeowners under siege

Property owners can claim damages for Japanese knotweed, the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark case.

Two householders in Wales succeeded in their claim this week against Network Rail after their properties were affected by the plant, which spreads quickly through its underground roots (rhizomes), is difficult to treat, blocks drains, undermines walls and overwhelms outbuildings. The bamboo-like perennial had been present on land directly behind their bungalows for 50 years.

Giving the lead judgment in Network Rail v Williams and Waistell [2018] EWCA Civ 1514, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, held the effects of Japanese knotweed can give rise to a claim in the tort of private nuisance.

He rejected the county court’s ruling that the tort arose from the reduced market value of the claimants’ homes. Instead, he upheld the claim on the basis the encroachment of the Japanese knotweed rhizomes had diminished the claimants’ ability to enjoy the amenity and utility of their properties.

‘The purpose of the tort of nuisance is not to protect the value of property as an investment or a financial asset,’ he said.

‘Its purpose is to protect the owner of land (or a person entitled to exclusive possession) in their use and enjoyment of the land as such as a facet of the right of ownership or right to exclusive possession.’

Sir Terence held that actual damage was not required to found a claim, however the knotweed must encroach, or at least threaten to encroach, on the claimant’s property.

Rodger Burnett, solicitor at Charles Lyndon, who acted for Waistell, said: ‘For far too long landowners like Network Rail have paid scant regard to the impact that their failure to adequately treat Japanese knotweed has had on adjoining properties. 

‘Hopefully now organisations like Network Rail will take their responsibilities seriously.’

Issue: 7800 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll