Horridge (t/a Newford Parts Centre) v Downshire House (Reproductions) Ltd

A failure to maintain a rainwater downpipe, causing water to run onto adjoining premises, constitutes nuisance. The nuisance is actionable only if the claimant proves damage. A possible defective flashing or inadequate maintenance does not defeat causation where the defendant’s conduct was a significant cause of the damage. Any contribution by the claimant’s maintenance is a matter of contributory negligence rather than an absence of causation, particularly where it has not been pleaded. On appeal, reasons are adequate if they enable the parties and appellate court to understand the decision; exhaustive reasoning on every point is unnecessary.

The claimant and defendant occupied adjoining business premises. A downpipe serving the defendant’s roof had been missing for several years. A timber purlin supporting the claimant’s roof developed wet rot, failed and caused water penetration and damage.

Following a split trial on liability before Mr Recorder Khan in the Manchester County Court, judgment was given for the claimant. The defendant appealed, arguing that the recorder had failed to give proper weight to evidence that water had penetrated before the purlin failed, and that the claimant had not proved causation. The central issues were whether the missing downpipe constituted an actionable nuisance, whether it caused damage, and whether the recorder’s reasoning was adequate.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Lloyd gave the leading judgment, with Lord Justices Sedley and Pill agreeing.

1. The failure to repair or replace a downpipe which had allowed rainwater to run down the defendant’s wall and directly or indirectly onto the claimant’s roof was conduct constituting nuisance. Because private nuisance is actionable only on proof of damage, the claimant had to establish some damage at the liability stage of the split trial. The amount of damage and quantum remained for later determination.
2. The missing downpipe had been absent for more than six years before the purlin failed. The experts agreed that the purlin had become saturated, developed wet rot and lost its structural integrity after prolonged exposure to water. Water had saturated the defendant’s wall and could permeate through the brickwork to the purlin, regardless of whether part of the flashing was defective.
3. The claimant’s evidence of some earlier water penetration did not show that a flashing defect had existed long enough to cause the purlin’s deterioration. The evidence could also have reflected other causes, such as slipped slates. The missing downpipe was at least a significant cause of the damage. The competing case therefore raised contributory negligence, not a complete absence of causation; contributory negligence had not been pleaded.
4. The challenge based on inadequate reasoning failed. The authorities, including Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 WLR 377 and English v Emery Reinbold and Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605, require reasons sufficient to allow the parties and an appellate court to understand the basis of the decision, but do not require a judge to expose fully developed reasoning on every point. The recorder had identified the disputed evidence, considered it in the correct causation context and explained why it did not displace the preferred expert evidence.

The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s appeal costs. The matter was listed for a case management conference concerning the next stage of the proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed; costs ordered against the defendant. [2010] EWCA Civ 777.
• Manchester County Court: Following a split trial on liability before Mr Recorder Khan, judgment was given for the claimant on 6 August 2009.