Study Notes
Key Case | Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940) | Nuisance – Adopting the Nuisance
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 9 Oct 2020
A defendant may still be liable in nuisance even where they did not create the activity amounting to a nuisance, but whereby there are seen to have adopted it.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Owner of neighbouring house to the defendant’s land
Defendant: The trustees of the St. Joseph’s Society for Foreign Missions
Facts: A field owned by an order of Monks had a hedge with a ditch behind it, the Council in agreement with a different (and unauthorised party) placed a pipe in the ditch, but the workers failed to complete it properly so that flooding was prevented. Following a heavy rainstorm, the pipe became blocked and the claimant’s premises were flooded causing significant damage. The defendants were aware of the work that had been completed.
Outcome: Liable
Legal principle: The defendant landowners were liable, despite not negligently installing the pipeworks themselves, they continued and adopted the nuisance. The pipework had been in place for three years and they had taken no action to property install a misplaced grid which would have removed the danger to the claimant’s property.