Chetwynd & Anor v Tunmore & Anor [2016] EWHC 156 (QB) (04 February 2016)

Chetwynd & Anor v Tunmore & Anor [2016] EWHC 156 (QB) (04 February 2016)

Section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991 imposes strict liability for loss or damage caused by abstraction of water, without a requirement of foreseeability. However, the claimants must prove on the balance of probabilities that, but for the defendants' abstraction, the loss would not have occurred. The material...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 156 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Bryn Michael Chetwynd; Claimant: Joanna Valerie Chetwynd; Defendant: Barry John Tunmore; Defendant: Caroline Tunmore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Water Abstraction Liability, Nuisance, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Planning Enforcement, Causation in Tort, Remedies for Environmental Harm
Tort Law Environmental Law Planning Law Water Abstraction Liability Nuisance Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Planning Enforcement +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Bryn Michael Chetwynd

Claimant

Joanna Valerie Chetwynd

Claimant

Barry John Tunmore

Defendant

Caroline Tunmore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' excavation of lakes and abstraction of water caused loss or damage to the claimants' fishery under section 48A Water Resources Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable in nuisance or negligence for the alleged harm
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to injunctive relief or damages

Ratio Decidendi

Section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991 imposes strict liability for loss or damage caused by abstraction of water, without a requirement of foreseeability. However, the claimants must prove on the balance of probabilities that, but for the defendants' abstraction, the loss would not have occurred. The material contribution test does not apply in this context. On the evidence, the claimants failed to prove that the defendants' abstraction was the effective cause of the loss of water levels and consequent damage to the fishery.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed