Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2024] UKSC 15 (08 May 2024)
Citation:Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2024] UKSC 15 (08 May 2024)
Rule of thumb: If you find Japanese knotweed in your garden/property, can you sue the person who caused it? If the spread of the knotweed started after 2013, yes; if the spread of the knotweed started significantly before this, ‘no’.
Background facts:This case invoked the subjects of nuisance & heritable property, as well as the underlying common law of delict.
The basic facts of this case were that in 2013 there become an obligation on people to stop the spread of knotweed – this was when the threat & damage caused by this became general knowledge. Mr Davies moved into his property in 2003. In 2004 knotweed began moving from the Council’s land into Mr Davies. This caused the value of the property to drop by £5,000 & it was not cost-effective to try to get rid of it. He sued the Council for this. The Council denied liability.
Court held: The Court held that the Council were not liable for this. The damage was done before 2013. The ‘but for’ test applied & the damage was already done before 2013 when it became a legal obligation, and the contribution to worsen it after 2013 was de minimis, so the Council were not liable.
Ratio-decidendi:
Applying the "but for" test to the facts of this case, the breach of duty from 2013 did not factually cause the residual diminution in value of the land. The claimant has not proved that the residual diminution in value would not have been suffered but for the breach of duty. This was because the JKW was already present on the claimant's land before 2013 so that the residual diminution in value had already been brought about by the natural, non-actionable, encroachment of the JKW. Indeed, the claimant conceded at trial that he was not entitled to damages for the cost of treatment of the JKW because that cost was not factually caused by the breach of duty. The cost of treatment would have had to be incurred irrespective of the breach of duty. Yet, inconsistently, that concession was not extended to the residual diminution in value: in this case, the correct position as regards factual causation is that what applies to the cost of treatment applies equally to the residual diminution in value.
Having rejected the claimant's submission on the secondary issue, because it was neither pleaded nor supported by any evidence (see para 78 above), it follows that the claimant has not established that there was an actionable tort of private nuisance committed in this case. Plainly the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that the alleged tort of private nuisance has been committed. But the claimant has failed to prove that the alleged damage (or, put another way, the alleged undue interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of land) was factually caused by the breach of duty which was committed from 2013. I agree, therefore, with Lord Stephens that the appeal should be allowed, and no damages should be awarded’.
Lord Burrows
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.