‘According to the Crop Protection Association one in ten cases of Knotweed infestation cost property owners more than £4,000, one in five cases see the value of the affected property fall and three in five cause property damage.’
Henderson Chambers, 27th July 2018
‘Common law private nuisance cases involving the invasive non-native plant, Japanese knotweed (JK), received a considerable amount of attention in the county court in 2017 and 2018. In the joined cases of Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (B20YX969) and Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2017] UK CC, Mr Recorder Grubb, sitting in Cardiff County Court, awarded damages to the claimants for loss of amenity on the basis that JK on the defendant’s land had diminished the value of the claimants’ land by reason of it rendering the claimants’ land less acceptable as security for mortgage lending, even in the event of the JK on the defendant’s land having been treated (see Article, Japanese knotweed nuisance in the light of Waistell and Smith v Line).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Over the past few years there has been increasing awareness about the threat posed by Japanese knotweed and new measures have been introduced to combat its spread.’
No. 5 Chambers, 16th July 2018
Source: www.no5.com
‘Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor (2018) EWCA Civ 1514. Japanese knotweed nuisance cases – there are already many of these and (given the nature of the pestilential stuff) there will be more. In case you don’t know, Japanese knotweed is an invasive weed that is all but impossible to eradicate (and must be done by licensed organisations). It grows quickly through spreading underground rhizomes and can affect structures if growing within 7 metres of their foundations. It’s presence has to be disclosed on any sale of a property.’
Nearly Legal, 4th July 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Two recent County Court decisions have grappled with the issue of Japanese knotweed (JK) in the context of private nuisance claims between neighbouring landowners. The first was the judgment of Mr Recorder Grubb in Cardiff in respect of two separate actions with a common defendant: Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (B20YX969) and Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (B34YJ849) (together Waistell). Still more recent was the judgment of HHJ Carr in Truro in Smith and another v Line (CTR00216) (Smith v Line), which was widely reported, albeit not entirely accurately, in the broadsheet and tabloid newspapers at the time of the hearing.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th May 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by a cyclist to impose a duty of care on central or local government to prevent roadside vegetation from impairing visibility for road users, saying there would “potentially serious and costly consequences” in doing so “for very little practical gain”.’
Litigation Futures, 9th May 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A wealthy businessman illegally cut down 11 protected trees on his land to give himself a bigger back garden, a court has heard.’
Daily Telegraph, 2nd May 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In Sheffield City Council v Fairhall [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB), the Court has been asked to consider the extent to which the decision in DPP v Jones [1999] UKHL 5; [1999] 2 AC 240 can be relied upon as a right to conduct peaceful but disruptive protest on the highway.’
UK Police Law Blog, 30th September 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must reconsider a case in which it awarded compensation of £25,000 against South Gloucestershire Council over damage caused by an oak made subject to a tree preservation order (TPO), the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th September 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Cavanagh v Witley Parish Council, Queen’s Bench Judgment on 14 February 2017, the Parish Council was found liable in negligence when a large mature lime tree on its land, with severe and extensive decay in the root system extending into the base of the trunk, fell across a road and onto a bus, causing the driver severe injury. It was a busy public road. The tree, which leant towards the road, and was over 20 metres high, was in a high risk position alongside the road, albeit, on cursory observation, in a healthy condition. It required regular inspection by a competent arboriculturalist. The Council’s three-yearly inspection policy with regard to its tree stock was “inadequate”. Inspection should have been more frequent. The Council had been advised to do the survey every two years. The local Borough Council had at the relevant time been operating a one-year inspection in respect of trees in high-risk areas, including apparently healthy trees.’
Local Government Law, 21st February 2017
‘A wealthy solicitor is embroiled in a bitter legal dispute with his neighbour over a lime tree he claims is damaging his £1.3 million home and smearing unsightly sap over his windows.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd December 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘R (o.t.a. Dilner) v. Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin), Gilbart J, 27 April 2016. A quick note on the latest Aarhus Convention point to come before the domestic courts.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd May 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A bitter dispute between campaigners and councillors over a controversial programme to cut down thousands of trees has continued at a hearing at the High Court in London.’
The Independent, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Bill and Mary Nicholson were awarded compensation after the Cedar tree’s roots caused serious damage to their semi-detached £400,000 property’
Daily Telegraph, 21st March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A landowner who wished to challenge a local planning authority’s tree replacement notice on the grounds that the number of trees which the notice required him to replace was greater than the number of trees which he had removed from the land, bore the burden of proving his case by sufficient evidence.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Sir John Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, says ‘one law for rich and another for poor’ as he tells court penalty imposed on Philip Edward Day should not still be outstanding.’
Daily Telegraph, 5th December 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Lane v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (19 April 2013) – extempore judgement by Sir Raymond Jack QBD.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A plant nursery forced to destroy 50,000 ash trees is suing the government for failing to block imports of the tree sooner.”
The Guardian, 5th November 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Two property developers found guilty of killing trees to make way for their £11 million Sandbanks development have had their convictions overturned – after a judge ruled their alleged motive was not relevant to the case.”
Daily Telegraph, 31st August 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025