Robbins v London Borough of Bexley [2013] EWHC Civ 1233 (17 October 2013)

Robbins v London Borough of Bexley [2013] EWHC Civ 1233 (17 October 2013)

The Council's failure to implement any programme of cyclical pruning from 1998 constituted a breach of its duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable damage to the claimant's property. The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that had a proper programme of crown reduction been implemented, the damage in 2003 and 2006 would have been avoided. The correct causation test was applied, requiring the court to consider what would have happened if the Council had fulfilled its duty, not merely what it should have done. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC Civ 1233
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Josephine Robbins; Appellant/defendant: London Borough of Bexley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (tcc)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Nuisance, Causation, Tree Root Damage, Duty of Care, Damages
Tort Law Property Law Local Government Law Negligence Nuisance Causation Tree Root Damage Duty of Care +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Robbins

Respondent/claimant

London Borough of Bexley

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (tcc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's failure to implement a cyclical crown reduction programme for trees constituted negligence and/or nuisance resulting in property damage
  2. 2 Whether the breach of duty caused the damage to the claimant's property
  3. 3 Whether the correct causation test was applied (Bolitho vs Beary)

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's failure to implement any programme of cyclical pruning from 1998 constituted a breach of its duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable damage to the claimant's property. The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that had a proper programme of crown reduction been implemented, the damage in 2003 and 2006 would have been avoided. The correct causation test was applied, requiring the court to consider what would have happened if the Council had fulfilled its duty, not merely what it should have done. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the High Court awarding damages to Mrs Robbins is upheld.
  • The Council remains liable for damages for nuisance and negligence.