0370 270 6000

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Rail Track Plc H.C

18 October 2000
The issues

Nuisance – Wild Animals on Property – Land Owners Responsibility

The facts

Rail Track owned a bridge over Balham High Road. Pigeons congregated underneath the bridge. Their droppings “affected” pedestrians who passed under the bridge. Wandsworth sued Rail Track for: –

1. Public nuisance
2. Private nuisance
3. Negligence

The decision

The Pigeon infestation and consequent fouling of the footpath amounted to a nuisance. The pigeons “substantially interfered with the comfort and convenience of the public”.

Rail Track made no unnatural or unreasonable use of its land.

The case fell squarely within the category of “liability for things naturally on land”.

Although Raul Track had no control over the general pigeon population, it could have prevented pigeons roosting under the bridge. Although Rail Track had not caused the nuisance they had failed to remedy it within a reasonable time or at all. There was no distinction in law between nuisances consisting of physical damage to property and inconvenience or interference with comfort. The public nuisance had been proved.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up