Fawcett & Ors v Phoenix Inns Ltd. & Anor

Fawcett & Ors v Phoenix Inns Ltd. & Anor

The trial judge made sufficient findings of fact and gave adequate reasons to support the conclusion that the defendants were liable in nuisance for water ingress from their property, that they knew or ought to have known of the nuisance, and that reasonable remedial action was identified. The injunction was not impermissibly vague, and the damages were properly attributed to the nuisance based on the evidence and expert opinion.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Fawcett and others; First Defendants/appellants: Phoenix Inns Limited; Second Defendants/appellants: Unique Pub Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Injunctions, Damages, Causation, Appeals Procedure
Tort Law Property Law Private Nuisance Injunctions Damages Causation Appeals Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fawcett and others

Claimants/respondents

Phoenix Inns Limited

First Defendants/appellants

Unique Pub Properties Limited

Second Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the defendants liable in nuisance for water ingress
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to make necessary findings of fact or give adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether the form of the injunction was impermissibly vague

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge made sufficient findings of fact and gave adequate reasons to support the conclusion that the defendants were liable in nuisance for water ingress from their property, that they knew or ought to have known of the nuisance, and that reasonable remedial action was identified. The injunction was not impermissibly vague, and the damages were properly attributed to the nuisance based on the evidence and expert opinion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants/respondents
  • Injunction against the defendants to restrain the nuisance and require remedial works as specified