Court v Van Dijk & Anor

Court v Van Dijk & Anor

The pleaded case against Mrs Court was based solely on the 2007 works, not the 2000 works. The 2007 works did not interfere with the Van Dijks’ right of drainage, and Mrs Court’s actions in disconnecting her gully were objectively reasonable. The recorder erred in permitting reliance on the 2000 works and in finding...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Terry Patricia Court; First Respondent: John Van Dijk; First Respondent: Bernardine Van Dijk; Second Respondent: City of York Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Easements, Drainage Rights, Independent Contractor Liability, Pleadings and Procedural Fairness
Tort Law Property Law Nuisance Easements Drainage Rights Independent Contractor Liability Pleadings and Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Patricia Court

Appellant

John Van Dijk

First Respondent

Bernardine Van Dijk

First Respondent

City of York Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recorder erred in permitting the claimants to rely on the 2000 works in support of their nuisance claim against Mrs Court
  2. 2 Whether the recorder was correct in finding that the direction of flow in the private drain was from east to west
  3. 3 Whether the recorder was correct to dismiss the independent contractor defence

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded case against Mrs Court was based solely on the 2007 works, not the 2000 works. The 2007 works did not interfere with the Van Dijks’ right of drainage, and Mrs Court’s actions in disconnecting her gully were objectively reasonable. The recorder erred in permitting reliance on the 2000 works and in finding nuisance established. The appeal is allowed and the claim against Mrs Court is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The claim against Mrs Court is dismissed.