LORD ADVOCATE v The REO STAKIS ORGANISATION Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 1981 |
| Date | 08 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
FIRST DIVISION.
Lord Jauncey.
NuisanceBuilding operationsDamage to neighbouring propertyInjury plus quam tolerabileExtent of law of nuisanceApplication to building operationsWhether defence of normal and familiar use relevant.
The pursuers averred that they suffered serious structural damage to their property as a result of building operations, and, in particular, piling operations, carried out on neighbouring subjects. The first defenders were proprietors of the neighbouring subjects. The second defenders carried out the piling operations on the first defenders' instructions. The pursuers sought to recover the cost of remedial work which had to be carried out as a result of the damage suffered. Their case against the first defenders rested on negligence and nuisance. The first defenders pled that there were no relevant averments in support of the pursuers' case of nuisance. After a procedure roll discussion the Lord Ordinary allowed parties a proof before answer.
Held (1) that the proper approach to a case of alleged nuisance was from the standpoint of the victim of the loss or inconvenience rather than from that of the alleged wrongdoer.
(2) That, if any person so used his property as to occasion serious disturbance or substantial inconvenience to his neighbour or material damage to his neighbour's property, it was generally irrelevant as a defence that the defender was making a normal and familiar use of his own property.
(3) That the law of nuisance applied to damage caused by building operations just as it did to damage caused to a neighbour by other types of use of adjoining property.
The Rt. Hon. Ronald King Murray, Q.C., M.P., Her Majesty's Advocate, as representing the Secretary of State for the Environment, brought an action of damages against (First) The Reo Stakis Organisation Ltd.; (Second) Cementation Piling and Foundations Ltd.; (Fourth) G. K. N. Keller Ltd.; and (Fifth) Messrs. Blyth and Blyth.
The pursuer represents the Secretary of State for the Environment in whom, as a result of certain statutory provisions, are vested the subjects Lanarkshire House, 191 Ingram Street, Glasgow, and all rights, liabilities and obligations relating thereto. The first defenders at the relevant time were the proprietors of the site 197201 Ingram Street upon which a nine-storey hotel was erected to their order. Lanarkshire House lies to the east of the hotel site and is separated therefrom by Virginia Lane. The second defenders were the piling contractors who carried out piling operations on the site preparatory to the erection of the hotel. The fourth defenders carried out a site investigation on the instructions of the fifth defenders who were the first defenders' consulting civil engineers. The pursuer averred that the subjects known as Lanarkshire House suffered serious structural damage as a result of the defenders' operations.
The facts are fully set out in the opinion of the Lord President.
On 12th February 1980, after a procedure roll hearing, the Lord Ordinary (Jauncey) refused to sustain the fourth plea-in-law for the first defenders and allowed parties a proof before answer. Lord Jauncey's opinion is reported at 1980 S.C. 203.
The first defenders reclaimed and the reclaiming motion was heard before the First Division on llth, 12th and 17th December 1980.
The arguments presented to the Court are set out in the opinion of the Court.
At advising on 8th January 1981, the opinion of the Court was delivered by the Lord President.
LORD PRESIDENT (Emslie).The subjects Lanarkshire House, 191 Ingram Street, Glasgow, are vested in the Secretary of State for the Environment. At all relevant times the first named defenders were the proprietors of the subjects 197 to 201 Ingram Street which lie to the west of Lanarkshire House and are separated from it only by the width of Virginia Lane. In 1971 the first defenders, under Dean of Guild warrant, demolished the buildings 197201 Ingram Street and, again under warrant, began to erect on the site a nine-storey hotel.
In or about July 1971 structural cracking appeared at the western end of Lanarkshire House. This was the result of movement of the building caused by piling operations carried out by piling contractors on behalf of the first named defenders on their neighbouring site. The particular method of piling used was by boring by cable percussion system. In an attempt to prevent further subsidence and further damage to the structure of Lanarkshire House various steps were taken, including ground stabilisation grouting, at the instance of the first named defenders. For a time the measures taken appeared to have been successful but further serious structural damage to Lanarkshire House appeared in 1973.
In this action the pursuer seeks to recover the cost of the remedial works which had to be carried out as the result of the damage suffered in 1973. The defenders, in addition to the Reo Stakis Organisation Ltd., are their piling contractors, and a company and a firm of consulting civil engineers both of which had prepared reports of site investigation carried out in the interest of the first named defenders before work on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RHM Bakeries (Northern) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...nuisance was extensively canvassed and set out in the opinion of the court in the case of Lord Advocate v. Reo Stakis Organisation Ltd.SC 1981 S.C. 104. That is a decision binding on this court, and rather than repeat that law in detail I simply adopt it and content myself by making two ref......
-
Kennedy v Glenbelle Ltd
...first-named defenders. The second-named defenders, however, reclaimed. Cases referred to: Advocate (Lord) v Reo Stakis Organisation LtdSC 1981 SC 104 Caledonian Railway Co v Greenock Corporation 1917 SC (HL) 56 Campbell v KennedyUNK (1864) 3 Macph 121 Chalmers v DixonUNK (1876) 3 R 461 Edin......