Brownlie & Son v Magistrates Barrhead
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1925 |
| Date | 15 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Viscount Cave), Viscount Haldane, Ld. Dunedin, Lord Sumner, Lord Buckmaster.
BurghDrainageResponsibility of burgh authorityReparation for flooding from sewerSeparate drainage systems for sewage and surface waterSurface water allowed to drain into sewerInadequacy of sewer to carry off surface waterBurgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (55 and 56 Vict. cap. 55), sec. 219.
The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, enacts:Sec. 219. The Commissioners shall from time to time cause to be made, under the streets, or elsewhere, such main and other sewers as shall be necessary for the effectual draining of the burgh
The local authority of a burgh adopted a dual system of drainage, whereby sewage and roof water was carried by the sewers, and surface water by separate lines of pipes. In the case of certain premises in the burgh, however, the surface water was, with the authority's acquiescence, discharged partly into one of the public sewers. Owing to heavy rainfall the sewer became surcharged, with the result that an accumulation of water, due in part to surface water which the sewer was unable to carry off and in part to an actual overflow from the sewer, collected in the courtyards at these premises, and the flood so formed, augmented later by water from an adjacent stream which overflowed its banks, penetrated the premises, and flooded them to a considerable depth.
In an action of damages by the owners of the premises against the burgh authority the First Division held (1) that, as the defenders were under a statutory duty to provide for the effectual draining of the burgh, they were bound, notwithstanding their adoption of the dual system of drainage, to carry off the surface water from the pursuers' premises by means of their sewer; (2) that the defenders were, accordingly, responsible for the flooding caused by the surcharging of the sewer; and (3) that they were liable for such damage to the pursuers' premises as could be attributed to this cause, but not for that attributable to the overflow from the stream, which arose from natural causes over which the defenders had no control.
On an appeal the House of Lords affirmed the judgment of the First Division.
ProcessReclaiming noteDamagesAssessment of damagesDefenders assoilzied by Lord OrdinaryDivision reversing Lord Ordinary and themselves assessing damagesCompetency.
In an action of damages the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defenders. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Aitchison V. Glasgow City Council
... ... interpretation of an earlier limitation provision, similarly worded, it had been held ( Brownlie & Son v Magistrates of Barrhead 1923 SC 915) that the punctum temporis "must be one at which ... ...
-
Gray v North British Steel Foundry Ltd
...& Co. (London) Ltd.SC, 1965 S. C. 427. 4 Brownlie & Son v. Magistrates of Barrhead, 1923 S. C. 915, Lord President Clyde at p. 929, 1925 S. C. (H. L.) 41;Watson v. Fram Reinforced Concrete Co.SC, 1960 S. C. (H. L.) 92, Lord Reid at p. 106; Brown v. North British Steel Foundry Ltd.SC, 1968 S......
-
Brown v North British Steel Foundry Ltd
...v. YoungENR, (1826) 5 B. & C. 259, and Brownlie & Son v. Magistrates of Barrhead, 1923 S. C. 915, Lord President Clyde at p. 929, 1925 S.C. (H.L.) 41. 5 Watson v. Fram Reinforced Concrete Co. (Scotland) Ltd. and Winget Ltd.SC, 1960 S. C. (H. L.) 92; Cartledge v. E. Jopling & Sons Ltd.ELR, [......
-
Keogh v Magistrates of Edinburgh
...CrombieSC, (1875) 2 R. 886, Lord Ormidale, at p. 891. 2 1912 S. C. 1199, 1913 S. C. (H. L.) 27, [1913] A. C. 488. 3 1923 S. C. 915, 1925 S. C. (H. L.) 41. 1 42 and 43 Vict. cap. 2 Hawkins v. GathercoleENR, (1854) 6 De G. M. & G. 1, at pp. 2021. ...