Davies & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) (03 November 2017)

Davies & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) (03 November 2017)

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the defendants' diversion of a watercourse caused increased flooding on the claimants' land between 2009 and 2015, that no sufficient permission was granted for the diversion, and that harm to the third claimant was reasonably foreseeable. The judge's approach to expert evidence and findings of fact were correct and open to him.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Menerie Wendy Davies; Claimant/respondent: Graham Davies; Claimant/respondent: Cerith Andrew Davies; Defendant/appellant: David Alfred Campfield; Defendant/appellant: Linda Diane Campfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Negligence, Flooding, Causation, Land Drainage, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Property Law Nuisance Negligence Flooding Causation Land Drainage Expert Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Menerie Wendy Davies

Claimant/respondent

Graham Davies

Claimant/respondent

Cerith Andrew Davies

Claimant/respondent

David Alfred Campfield

Defendant/appellant

Linda Diane Campfield

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable in nuisance and negligence for flooding caused by diversion of a watercourse
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in findings of fact regarding causation and mechanism of flooding
  3. 3 Whether permission was granted by the relevant agency for the diversion works

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the defendants' diversion of a watercourse caused increased flooding on the claimants' land between 2009 and 2015, that no sufficient permission was granted for the diversion, and that harm to the third claimant was reasonably foreseeable. The judge's approach to expert evidence and findings of fact were correct and open to him.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimants/respondents stands