0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Wandsworth London B.C. v Railtrack Plc, Court of Appeal

31 July 2001
The issues

Nuisance – Highways – Pigeon Droppings

The facts

The claimant sought a declaration that the defendant was liable to abate a public nuisance. The nuisance consisted of pigeons, which rousted under a railway bridge. The Claimant also sought an injunction requiring Railtrack to carry out works. The Claimant was successful and the defendant appealed.

The decision

1. Where there was a public nuisance on the defendant’s land it did not matter if it was created by the defendant or a third party or naturally.

2. If the defendant was aware of it and had a reasonable opportunity of abating it and was able to abate it and had decided not to do so, he was liable.

3. The judge was entitled to have found as a fact that there was a public nuisance. The cause of the nuisance was not relevant if the defendant had knowledge, means and opportunity to abate. There was no reason why the capital cost of pigeon-proofing the bridge should not fall wholly on Railtrack.

The local authority was entitled in addition to damages in respect of the extra costs of pavement cleaning up to the date that Railtrack gave the local authority permission to abate the nuisance at its own expense.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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