Giles v Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1889 |
| Year | 1889 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
[DIVISIONAL COURT]
GILES v. WALKER.
1890 March 27.
LORD COLERIDGE, C.J. , LORD ESHER, M.R.
Nuisance - Thistles - Neglect of Occupier to cut Thistles - Seeds blown on to adjoining Land.
An occupier of land is under no duty towards his neighbour to periodically cut the thistles naturally growing on his land, so as to prevent them from seeding; and if, owing to his neglect to cut them, the seeds are blown on to his neighbour's land and do damage, he is not liable.
APPEAL from the Leicester County Court.
The defendant, a farmer, occupied land which had originally been forest land, but which had some years prior to 1883, when the defendant's occupation of it commenced, been brought into cultivation by the then occupier. The forest land prior to cultivation did not bear thistles; but immediately upon its being cultivated thistles sprang up all over it. The defendant neglected to mow the thistles periodically so as to prevent them from seeding, and in the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
5 cases
-
Davey v Harrow Corporation
...of this sort is to be found in Lemmon v. Webb or any of the other cases dealing with trees, but reliance is placed on Giles v. Walker 24 Q.B.D. 656:62 L.T. 933; and Pontardawe R.D.C. Moore-Gwyn 1929 1 Ch. 656. The former case, which has not escaped criticism by text writers of great learnin......
-
Loring v. Brightwood Golf and Country Club Ltd.,
...Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 56, folld. [para. 50]. Goldman v. Hargrave and Others, [1967] 1-2 A.C. 645, folld. [para 53]. Giles v. Walker (1890), 24 Q.B.D. 656, refd to. [para. Job Edwards Ltd. v. Birmingham Navigations, [1924] 1 K.B. 341, refd to. [para. 54]. Counsel: A. David MacAdam and Thoma......
-
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack Plc
...another contrary strand of authority� Pontardawe Rural District Council v. Moore-Gwyn (1928) 45 TLR 276 and the earlier case of Giles v. Walker (1890) 24 QBD 656. Both these cases indicate that a landowner is under no duty to abate conditions which arise from their land due to natural agenc......
-
Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty
...[1958] 1 Q.B. 60, C.A. and Margate Pier and Harbour Proprietors v. Margate Town Council (1869) 20 L.T. 564 applied. Giles v. Walker (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 656, C.A., Pontardawe Rural District Council v. Moore-Gwyn [1929] 1 Ch. 656 andRadstock Co-operative and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Norton-Rad......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
The Limitations of 'Sic Utere Tuo...': Planning by Private Law Devices
...either in an action for damages or in a suit for an injunction.” 6. Can nature untended cause a private nuisance? In Giles v. Walker, 24 Q.B.D. 656, 657 (1890), in reversing a finding that the defendant had been negligent in failing to mow land on which thistles had sprung up after cultivat......