header-logo header-logo

Trees

23 June 2011
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and another [2011] EWHC 1353 (TCC), [2011] All ER (D) 75 (Jun)

The test of whether there was root subsidence damage was whether the relevant trees were an effective and substantial cause of the recent damage, they need not be the sole cause of damage. In tree root cases, the question to be asked was whether the defendant(s) had acted reasonably. Where a claimant had brought a claim in negligence and nuisance, the claimant had to prove that a duty was owed and that it was breached. The test of forseeability was whether the risk was one which a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have regarded as a real risk.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll