Hello. My name is Rachel Coyle, and today I'm doing a webinar on Network Rail Infrastructure LTD. And winnings in the North in 2018 England Wales Culture Appeal Civil division reports of page 151 full now. So you may have heard that this case don't you may not have done lessons. This case is about Japanese knotweed, but it's more like more about the principles to be taken from this case, not just the fact that it's about Japanese knotweed. I'm a buy stuff at the 56 group on I practiced in property and housing on commercial law on this Webinar is brought to you in conjunction with data. So I just turning to the breast substantive slide. This deals with the facts of the case goes just tough it out a little bit for you. So in this case, the claimants were Mr Williams and Mr Waste All there were. The owners are two adjacent bungalows in South Wales. These bunglers backed onto a railway cutting owned by network rail infrastructure bra purposes. We will call them and or I Japanese knotweed run the coating encroached on their properties. The claimants brought a private recent action against an honor and in this case, the stand of the Japanese knotweed stood upon the railway embankment news their homes it spread on it, infested that gardens for those who may not know about Jackie's not weed, but it grows with extreme rapidity, and it can cause serious damage. We can damage retaining walls, fences, outbuildings and it is notoriously difficult to try and get rid of it. Once it has managed to get support in soil can also be contaminated with the tiniest traces of Japanese knotweed and must be disposed off as control waste, which can be quite expensive. You can also increase the cost of difficulty you burnt on land on which any Japanese knotweed is well has recently being present. So in this particular Clayton case, the claimants were keen to bring a claim for nuisance into Paris. The defendants were permitting the spread of the knotweed and we do nothing about it and also primarily to try and get in Georgia an injunction to try and encourage and require and our I to treat me mu or indeed even eliminates that not weed on their land. They also ill people damages as well, the claim in nuisance you would just turn to slide. Three was brought on to alternative bases. The first was encroachment on the second was quiet enjoyment, loss of immunity in terms of encroachment. They were all drink that channel rai waas liable on occupied land, whether not read was present. What's in creating onto the claimants? Lamb. They're also claiming for quite enjoying strong community. In essence, they say that presence has not weighed on the land because if not, we beat on Horizon was in close proximity and therefore was sufficiently serious to interfere with that quiet enjoyment on immunity value their properties. They said that this constitutes an actual nuisance on effects, their ability to sell the product properties at a market value. At first instance, the encroachments claim was dismissed. It was dismissed on the basis that, being actual nuisance, there had to be actual physical damage. In this case, not could be established. The quiet, enjoyment lot immunity past. The claim, however, did succeed. But on the basis that lost with me and he could include Mnuchin value as a result of a claim, its inability dispose of their properties, acts that proper value record. Therefore found that on all right did breach the duty. Who could cause a continuing nuisance and damage whilst it considered that it was not appropriate to grant an injunction to compel and all right to treat the knotweed did award damages it awarded £4320 the claimant to cover treatment package both close £300 for the not need survey. There was a £50 with general damages per year and £10,500 Mr Williams and £10,000 Mr Waste. All well residual diminish in value once the treatment Waas completed, however, and you'll see terms, life all and I was not too happy about this. UN appealed to the quarter appeal on two grounds, firstly, to charge the court's conclusion. Now the mere presence of not read on land. Joining the claimants properties was an actual nuisance simply because it diminished the market value properties and secondly, to challenge the courts fighting. There was a causal link between any breach of duty on our right part on a residual domination of I've properties course. Repeal, however, clarified that the purpose off the tort of nooses is not to protect the value of properties by a bunch of asset would to protect the landowner in they use occupation land. In that instance, then the catacombs decision was wrong. United, Effective extended the tort of nuisance to acclaim for pure economic loss, any diminution in value. So whilst allowing the appeal of the appealing part timer, the Court of Appeal went on to find the first instance. Outcome was never less justified, namely the award of all heads of damages. We'll be for different reasons and originally given course. Repeal held Having crashed Kratch mint of the tiny reefs off the Japanese knotweed plants, also known as Rizzoli's, constitute sufficient damage to found an action for nooses. That the presence of Japanese knotweed described as quote a pernicious weed upon land is a natural hazard and therefore places the landowner upon the landowner duty to neighbouring land, which it might spread to to eradicate that Japanese No, that pure economic loss, in the form of diminution in value of land without some other kind of damage is not recordable, told nooses of course appeal. It was held that the mere presence of traces of Japanese knotweed on land, given the difficulties that it can cause Landowner is an actionable encroachment, even though it may 1st appear to have no effect. Presence of Japanese knotweed constitute a natural hazard because it's like a fire you're not. Once the owner has noticed off, it's the only woman due to take reasonable steps to a greater the mere fact of domination. Value is not sufficient to make damage in the tort of nuisance. But of course, this does not fact out. Court got banter, and all right did have actual knowledge of the presence of not read on its land. Behind a client's property is early 2013. The first was aware or have been aware of the risk of damage, not immunity, to adjoining properties. As a consequence, it was sufficient to give rise to a cause of action circumstances, where, in addition to the risk of future physical damage two buildings the president will impose on immediate burden on the claimants. This outcome meant that the second appeal ground did fall away because was decided by the Court of Appeal that that bird and clearly effect the close to village to fully use, enjoy their properties and was therefore an example of interpret to be 25. But this did not mean that the quarter appeal. We're prepared to admit fresh evidence as a precise impact on value, as that was not adduced during the first instance hearing. So what does all this mean? Well turned to the final slide. On the one hand, the diminishing by claim was essentially dismissed. But that was only because it was not recognized. The head of loss and tortured Newsom's that ISS the pure, your economical, optimistic the case in the case off nuisance in the contact when you are claiming port of admission value so interestingly, we could appeal never last awarded the same award on the basis that it fairly compensates claims, for they're not quite enjoying immunity. But this is very different to the principles that apply fresh negligence kinds what a finish continuation will be and still remains on entirely funded head of loss. This case has nothingto also that it does not in 12 to claim its ability if they so wish to go after their professional advisers the diminution of value depending on when they approach the property. And so, in this case, the master rolls referred to the quote, pernicious ramifications off the presence off, not wound. That's imposing an immediate burden on the owner of that. This was a natural hazards. Good thing about this case is that, given the damning description off Japanese knotweed and given what is now known about Japanese, not we need in that, then he not be obvious physical damage to property. It would seem from what this case just that's the at least some kind of charges in from pure economic loss charges, it appears that this is out the first case in an appellate court where Japanese knotweed has been taken seriously. I'm being taken seriously. It might well be now that the low, of course will take it more seriously and will actually consider be more receptive. Toe exception evidence. The presence of the current Japanese knotweed can and will damage value. But the problem with this is that there's no chance actual evidence that could be provided to support players at market buyers on any way diminished once treatments have been carried out on those surveys who seeks suggest otherwise, couldn't appear to be plying up more than apparently subjective guesswork, see, But it might be that is chargeable. So for estate agents since failures, they need to be even more regiment about potential presence off this planet and unsure, given the ease with which it existence can be concealed. That they complete a very detailed inspection on that a little marked in literature and advice is, appropriately caveat. Recommending specious investigation. Regardless of whether or not there are obvious signs of Japanese knotweed, it's something that's one or two consider, especially if the property they are thinking of purchasing is very near to more wild looking greenery, fields, moors, railway tracks, canals, rivers even. But the interesting thing is, is that unless it's a manager of wine mint as part of the property passport sister that might be introduced part of the housing with warm that's being considered, it might be that unless that is done, this four by the wayside is just being yet another case of nuisance. But it seems to may that if one works in this field and providing advice and is this a fair or estate agent, I strongly suggest that they do complete detailed inspections, and those caveats, even though at the moment is the monitor requirement, will that be such a fascist investigation. Interestingly, though, there has been some research on this field. So the University of Leeds released its own research, in which it studied 149 properties and sites where the Japanese knotweed was known to exist. And he decided that actually, whilst it was capable, damaging buildings, this only really occurred if building already waas. If they're already waas, preexisting weakness or defect, then it really exacerbated. It was considered that actually there was little evidence, therefore, that and Japanese knotweed daughter called significant structural damage. That doesn't pose much a risk, as one might originally thought, But this is a complete contrast to the best to you. It's one of the completed some research in Anchorage 1018 which concluded that actually Japanese, not we could not be eradicated by federal herbicide treatments. Andi also, that's no one size fits all in that each outbreak of Japanese knotweed on the treatment program that the doctor is very much individual to that particular outbreak because it depends on how long it's been that how deep rooted it have. Cormack unite Andi effectively, how pernicious it, it's how quickly doesn't it grow so that in summary is what happened in this case. I think the main things take away from it is like I say that effectively estate agents and very vigilant when competing that infections. Um but also that the culture appeal took a different view as to why damages could be awarded in this case. Could pass accounted core about whether or not that you can bring a case for diminish in value concluded being No, in some cases. But more importantly, I think the main principle to take away from that is that we now have this quarter appeal case. An appellate case Yushin Army is that hopefully the county courts will take such cases more seriously. Certainly one would hope so. We've indeed in high for Andi. That's what I certainly hope will be the case. Um, if you have any questions following this webinar, you do not hesitate to contact title. You can pass on any questions to myself. Well, to take a time out Negative on done on the changes website please have a good evaluation fall Try complete that you can hopefully the publicize the notes will happen with that. But I told you drew the courses. Thank you very much for listening
Webinar
Notes
1596 Users
31 Courses
50 Reviews
