Berent v Family Mosaic Housing & Ors

Berent v Family Mosaic Housing & Ors

Both Defendants’ London plane trees materially contributed to desiccation and subsidence at the front and left of the Claimant’s property, but were not the predominant cause in 2003. From 2004 onwards, after removal of the Claimant’s Tree of Heaven, the Defendants’ trees became the effective and predominant cause. Both Defendants breached their duty by failing to abate the nuisance by tree removal in Autumn 2010.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Gretelmay Anna Berent; First Defendant: Family Mosaic Housing (incorporating Mosaic Housing Association); Second Defendant: London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant in part; both Defendants found in breach from Autumn 2010 onwards.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Negligence, Tree Root Subsidence, Duty of Care, Tree Preservation Orders
Tort Property Local Government Nuisance Negligence Tree Root Subsidence Duty of Care Tree Preservation Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Gretelmay Anna Berent

Claimant

Family Mosaic Housing (incorporating Mosaic Housing Association)

First Defendant

London Borough of Islington

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' trees caused or materially contributed to subsidence damage to the Claimant's property
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants owed and breached a duty of care in nuisance and negligence
  3. 3 Whether the risk of damage was reasonably foreseeable

Ratio Decidendi

Both Defendants’ London plane trees materially contributed to desiccation and subsidence at the front and left of the Claimant’s property, but were not the predominant cause in 2003. From 2004 onwards, after removal of the Claimant’s Tree of Heaven, the Defendants’ trees became the effective and predominant cause. Both Defendants breached their duty by failing to abate the nuisance by tree removal in Autumn 2010.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant in part; both Defendants found in breach from Autumn 2010 onwards.

Orders

  • Damages awarded for gross inconvenience and loss of amenity from Autumn 2010 to present
  • Award of £5,000 to Claimant