Davies & Anor v Campfield & Anor

Davies & Anor v Campfield & Anor

The trial judge's findings of fact regarding the degree and cause of flooding, the non-existence of the 300mm pipe, the lack of specific permission for the diversion, and the foreseeability of harm to the third claimant were all open to him on the evidence and should not be disturbed on appeal. The judge was entitled to prefer the claimants' expert evidence as it better fit the primary facts found.

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 / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Negligence, Flooding, Causation, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Property Law Nuisance Negligence Flooding Causation 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 3 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 / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

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 the existence of a 300mm pipe and causation
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in preferring one expert's evidence over another

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings of fact regarding the degree and cause of flooding, the non-existence of the 300mm pipe, the lack of specific permission for the diversion, and the foreseeability of harm to the third claimant were all open to him on the evidence and should not be disturbed on appeal. The judge was entitled to prefer the claimants' expert evidence as it better fit the primary facts found.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed