Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams
The presence of Japanese knotweed on neighbouring land, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of the claimant's land, can be an actionable nuisance even before it causes physical damage.
Facts
Mr Williams and Mr Waistell owned bungalows next to a railway embankment owned by Network Rail, on which Japanese knotweed was growing. The knotweed had spread into their gardens, but had not yet caused physical damage to their houses. They sued Network Rail in nuisance, claiming that the knotweed reduced the value of their properties and interfered with their enjoyment of them.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Network Rail was liable in nuisance, although not for the reduction in value as such. Sir Terence Etherton MR said that the purpose of the tort of nuisance is to protect the claimant's use and enjoyment of land, not the value of land as an investment, so a mere diminution in value is not recoverable. But the presence of knotweed rhizomes, which imposes a burden on the claimant's ability to use the land fully, because of the cost and difficulty of treatment, is itself an interference with the use and enjoyment of land, and is actionable once it has spread to the claimant's land, under the measured duty in Leakey.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
