Ilford Urban Council v Beal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1925 |
| Year | 1925 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Local Government - Sewer - Acts done by Landowner - Damage to Sewer lying beneath Land - Landowner Ignorant of Existence of Sewer - Liability.
An owner of land is not liable for damage to a sower lying beneath his land, caused by acts done or omitted by him upon the land, where he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, of the existence of the sewer.
ACTION tried by Branson J. without a jury.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs in respect of damage done to one of their main sewers. At the close of the evidence for the plaintiffs, the learned judge held that there was no case against the defendant Beal, and the action proceeded against the other defendant, Mrs. Judd.
The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of Branson J.:—
In 1900/1901 the plaintiffs laid the sewer in question, which in part of its course passed under the River Roding and under premises known as No. 1 High Road, Ilford, which include land abutting on the river. Those premises were, at that time, owned by Mrs. Frances Beal, who died on August 20, 1905, and left them to her husband Edmund Beal. On June 29, 1918, Edmund Beal conveyed the premises to the defendant Mrs. Judd. The usual requisitions upon title were made by Mrs. Judd's solicitors, and the answers did not disclose the existence of the sewer on the premises. I am satisfied that neither Mrs. Judd nor any of her servants or agents were aware of the existence of the sewer. When the sewer was laid Mrs. Beal claimed compensation in respect of its compulsory passage through her land, and as the result of an arbitration was awarded and was paid 80l.
In 1902 the authorities concerned decided upon certain improvements in the locality, which resulted in the rebuilding and widening of Ilford Bridge, which abutted on the property of Mrs. Beal, and the diversion of the Aldersbrook, a tributary of the Roding, which had hitherto joined the Roding at a point just below Mrs. Beal's property, and was then made to join it just above that property. In July, 1903, Mrs. Beal received as compensation from the Essex County Council, who carried out these alterations, 200l. in respect of the diversion of the Aldersbrook and 500l. in respect of the alteration of the bridge.
In 1903 there came an unusually severe flood, which swept away an old retaining wall which had previously stood between the garden of No. 1 and the river, and in 1904 a new retaining wall was erected by Mrs. Beal a few feet on the landward side of the old wall and across the plaintiffs' sewer. The new wall was a concrete wall built on the advice of a competent surveyor who, however, was not a civil engineer. It was not carried as far below the bed of the river as the best engineering practice would dictate, and it lacked a concrete toe or apron, the provision of which would have prevented the river from undermining the wall as soon as it was in fact undermined, and it lacked weeping holes to drain off water which might get behind it, either from the river or from rain. In spite, however, of these deficiencies the wall stood until September, 1919, and down to that time did not present to any one who saw it any definite indications that it was in danger of collapsing. The plaintiffs' engineer, Mr. Shaw, knew of the existence of the wall and that it passed over the plaintiffs' sewer. It could easily be seen from the Ilford Bridge, against which it abutted, and the engineer must have seen it from time to time, but it never occurred to him that it was likely to damage the sewer.
On September 17, 1919, trouble at the plaintiffs' pumping station indicated that the sewer was broken, and steps were taken to find out where the break had occurred. The information at the disposal of the plaintiffs' engineer did not enable him to locate the sewer in the first instance, and it was at first looked for at a spot some distance away from that which it in fact occupied. When it was discovered and the ground above it opened up it was found that the river had completely undermined the concrete wall, which had moved forward a foot or two from its original position under the thrust of the wet earth behind it and also leant forward a little, so that its outer bottom corner had pressed upon the sewer which crossed diagonally beneath it and had broken in the cast-iron pipe of which the sewer consisted, and had penetrated it to the extent of some 6½ inches.
Montgomery K.C. and Tindal Atkinson for the plaintiffs.
Craig Henderson K.C. and Ridsdale for the defendant Beal.
Rayner Goddard K.C. and J. Ewart Walker for the defendant Mrs. Judd.
Feb. 12, 1925. BRANSON J. read the following judgment: This is an action by the plaintiffs, in whom are vested the main sewers in the urban district of Ilford, for damage done to the Ilford main Roding sewer. There were originally two defendants, but at the close of the plaintiffs' case I held that there was no case made against the defendant Beal, and with him therefore I have nothing more to do. The other defendant is Mrs. Judd, and the issue which I have to determine is whether or no she is liable to make good to the plaintiffs the damage which has been sustained by their sewer. If so, the question as to the amount of such damage will be settled elsewhere. [The learned judge stated the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coope and Others v Ward and Another
...hidden danger to the properties below: see the authorities cited at Clerk & Lindsell on Torts 20 th Edition para 20–99; Ilford Urban District Council v Beal and Judd [1925] 1 KB 671.; St Anne's Well Brewery Co v Roberts (1928) 140 LT 1; Wilkins v Leighton [1932] 2 Ch 106. The Coopes' counte......
- Noble v Harrison
- R; Seow Peng Kuan
- Strutt's Kingston Estate Settlement Trustees v Kingston Brook Internal Drainage Board