Langbrook Properties Ltd v Surrey County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1969 |
| Year | 1969 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Nuisance - Occupier's liability - Activities on land - Occupier abstracting water from beneath own land - Resulting abstraction of water percolating beneath neighbouring land - Dewatering of neighbouring land and settlement of buildings thereon - Whether actionable nuisance. - Negligence - Duty of care to whom? - Owner of neighbouring land - Excavations causing dewatering of neighbouring land and consequent settlement of buildings thereon - Liability of defendants.
The plaintiff company, property developers and owners of a site which they were developing, claimed damages for nuisance and negligence against the defendants, and alleged that, by pumping out excavations on land in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' land, the defendants had abstracted water percolating beneath the plaintiffs' land, which had caused settlement of the buildings on that land. The defendants contended, inter alia, that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.
On the trial of a preliminary issue whether, on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs had any cause of action against the defendants by reason of any withdrawal of water by pumping the same from beneath land in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' land:—
Held, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action in either nuisance or negligence, since the defendants were entitled to abstract the water under their land percolating in undefined channels to whatever extent they chose, notwithstanding that this resulted in the abstraction of water percolating under the plaintiffs' land and thereby caused them injury; that any damage suffered by the plaintiffs was damnum sine injuria.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Acton v. Blundell (
Bleachers Association Ltd. v. Chapel-en-le-Frith Rural District Council [
Bradford Corporation v. Pickles [
Chasemore v. Richards (
Donoghue v. Stevenson [
Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [
Elliot v. North Eastern Railway Co. (
English v. Metropolitan Water Board [
Gill v. Westlake [
Jordeson v. Sutton, Southcoates & Drypool Gas Co. [
Popplewell v. Hodkinson (
Salt Union Ltd. v. Brunner, Mond & Co. [
Trinidad Asphalt Co. v. Ambard [
Trower v. Chadwick (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Andreae v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. [
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett [
Kent v. Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation (
Leeman v. Montagu [
Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation v. Wolstanton Ltd. [
Rigby v. Bennett (
Rylands v. Fletcher (
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In this action for damages for nuisance and negligence, the court considered a preliminary issue whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed any cause of action against the defendants or some one or more of them by reason of any withdrawal of water by means of pumping the same from beneath the surface of the defendants' land.
The allegations of fact in the statement of claim, which are more fully stated in the judgment, were that the plaintiffs, Langbrook Properties Ltd., property developers, had at all material times owned a freehold site of approximately three acres at Sunbury-on-Thames in the county of Surrey, registered in H.M. Land Registry under titles nos. SY 350118 and SY 341645. This land was being developed by the plaintiffs by the erection of offices, shops and residential accommodation. The first defendants, the Surrey County Council, were the highway authority for the area, and concerned in the construction of the M.3 Motorway, which necessitated the diversion of an aqueduct carrying water from the Staines reservoir. The second defendants, the Metropolitan Water Board, as the water authority for the area, were responsible for the diversion. They engaged the third and fourth defendants, Turriff Construction Corporation Ltd. and Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd., both building and engineering contractors, to carry out the work. In the course of the work certain excavations were dug in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' land to a depth extending below water table level. In order to keep these excavations dry, the defendants pumped water from under their land. This pumping resulted in the abstraction of water percolating beneath the plaintiffs' land, which caused settlements in the buildings on that land.
The plaintiffs claimed damages for nuisance and negligence against all the defendants. The defendants denied the alleged damage, contending, inter alia, that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, this being the question considered as a preliminary issue.
S. L. Newcombe for the first and second defendants, the Surrey County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board.
T. H. Bingham for the third defendants, Turriff Construction Corporation Ltd.
Richard Scott for the fourth defendants, Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd.
H. E. Francis Q.C. and Rupert Evans for the plaintiffs.
November 3, 1969. PLOWMAN J. read the following judgment. This action comes before me pursuant to an order dated April 30, 1969, by which a preliminary issue was ordered to be tried. The issue is framed as follows: “Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendants or some one or more of them by reason of any withdrawal of water by means of pumping the same from beneath the surface of the land in the pleadings referred to as ‘the first defendant's land.’”
In substance, the question which I have to determine is whether the statement of claim discloses any cause of action.
The matter arises in this way. The plaintiffs carry on business as property developers. They own a site of approximately three acres at Sunbury-on-Thames which they are developing by the erection of shops, offices and residential accommodation.
The first defendants, the Surrey County Council, are the highway authority for the area and as such they are concerned, as agents for the Ministry of Transport, in the construction of the M.3 Motorway.
The construction of this motorway has necessitated the diversion of an aqueduct which carried water from the Staines reservoir and the repositioning of certain water mains.
This work made it necessary for the defendants to dig excavations in the ground in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' land. And in order to keep these excavations dry, water had to be pumped out of the land on which they were made. It is common ground, at any rate for the purposes of this application, that the excavations extended to a depth below the water table level.
The second defendants, the Metropolitan Water Board, are the water authority for the area, and it was their responsibility to effect the diversion of the aqueduct and the repositioning of the water mains to which I have referred. They engaged the third and fourth defendants, Turiff Construction Corporation Ltd. and Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd., both building and engineering contractors, to carry out the necessary work.
The plaintiffs' case is that the pumping operations involved in carrying out that work on the first defendants' land resulted in the abstraction of the water percolating beneath their own neighbouring land and that this caused settlements in the buildings on that land. The plaintiffs claim damages for nuisance and negligence against all the defendants.
The material paragraphs of the statement of claim are as follows: Paragraph 5:
“In or about March 1968 the second defendant by its servants agents or contractors the third defendant laid two 36 inch diameter pipes” — and I think there must be a mistake there — “under the surface of the first defendant's land and below the level of the water table thereof. In order to keep the excavations required for laying the said pipes dry, the second defendant by its servant, agent or contractor the third defendant in or about January 1968 commenced pumping to withdraw water from beneath the surface of the first defendant's land and continued to do so until April 1968.”
Paragraph 6 reads:
“Further pumping as aforesaid was carried out by the second defendant by its servant agent or contractor the fourth defendant in June 1968.”
Paragraph 7 reads:
“As a result of such pumping as aforesaid the plaintiff's land was dewatered and the plaintiff's land became subject to differential settlements resulting in, inter alia, a 3/8 inch differential settlement in a 13 storey office block erected on the plaintiff's land.”
I now pass to paragraph 10:
“The matters alleged in paragraphs 5 to 7 (inclusive) hereof constituted a nuisance caused or permitted by the defendants.”
Paragraph 11 reads:
“Further or alternatively the matters and complaints alleged in paragraphs 5 to 7 (inclusive) hereof were caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v Anglian Water Authority
...by Plowman J., on facts which were in material respects indistinguishable from those of the present case, in Langbrook Properties Limited v. Surrey County Council (1970) 1 W.L.R. 161. After a careful examination of a long line of authorities, Plowman J. (at p. 178) summarised his conclusion......
-
Singapore Finance Ltd v Lim Kah Ngam (S'pore) Pte Ltd (Eugene HL Chan Associates, Third Party)
...fruit of the researches of the most learned men.I should now refer to the authority of Langbrook Properties Ltd v Surrey County Council [1970] 1 WLR 161 on which the defendants before me had placed great reliance. It was there alleged that by pumping out excavations on land in the vicinity ......
-
Bryn Michael Chetwynd and Another v Barry John Tunmore and Another
...have found in any event that the claim in negligence or nuisance could not be sustained by reason of the decisions in Langbrook Properties Limited -v- Surrey County Council [1970] 1 W.L.R. 161 and Stephens -v- Anglian Water Authority [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1381, where it was held a landowner has a......
- Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council ; Scarborough Borough Council v Geotechnical Engineering (Northern) Ltd
-
Remedies Available To Consumers Against Manufacturers Of Defective Products, Goods And Services In Nigeria.
...which it was intended to be used. In support of this ground are the cases of Longbrook Properties Ltd. v. Surrey County Council & Ors (1970) 1 W.L.R 161 at 1778, Williams v Beesley (1973) 1 DEFENCE TO PRODUCT LIABILITY: There are various defences to a product liability claim and these are s......
-
The site
...but the efect of the draining work is to destabilise adjoining land: Popplewell v Hodkinson (1869) Lr 4 Ex 248; Langbrook v Surrey CC [1970] 1 WLr 161. Where, however, the efect of construction or demolition work is to expose a building on an adjacent property to the risk of destabilisation......