Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940]
Share
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880 is an English tort law case heard in the House of Lords concerning the principle of nuisance.
The council undertook work on the defendant's land at the request of a neighbouring landowner. The council negligently placed a grate in the wrong place, rendering the culvert prone to blockages. The defendant's workers had cleaned the culvert periodically over a three-year period to prevent blockages. However, due to a heavy rainstorm, a blockage occurred, and the flood damaged the neighbouring property owned by the claimant. The claimant brought an action in nuisance for the damage caused. The defendant argued that he had neither consented to nor had knowledge of the existence of the culvert.
The court held that the defendant was liable. Lord Maugham, delivering the judgment, expressed the view that the respondents both continued and adopted the nuisance. The lapse of nearly three years without taking corrective action led the court to conclude that they must be taken to have allowed the nuisance to continue. Additionally, the defendants were found to have adopted the nuisance because they continued to use the conduit without taking proper measures to render it safe.
In essence, the court found the defendant liable for the damage caused by the nuisance because they failed to address the issue despite having knowledge of it and the means to correct it. The case established the principle that an occupier may be held liable for the acts of a trespasser if they adopt or continue the nuisance.
The council undertook work on the defendant's land at the request of a neighbouring landowner. The council negligently placed a grate in the wrong place, rendering the culvert prone to blockages. The defendant's workers had cleaned the culvert periodically over a three-year period to prevent blockages. However, due to a heavy rainstorm, a blockage occurred, and the flood damaged the neighbouring property owned by the claimant. The claimant brought an action in nuisance for the damage caused. The defendant argued that he had neither consented to nor had knowledge of the existence of the culvert.
The court held that the defendant was liable. Lord Maugham, delivering the judgment, expressed the view that the respondents both continued and adopted the nuisance. The lapse of nearly three years without taking corrective action led the court to conclude that they must be taken to have allowed the nuisance to continue. Additionally, the defendants were found to have adopted the nuisance because they continued to use the conduit without taking proper measures to render it safe.
In essence, the court found the defendant liable for the damage caused by the nuisance because they failed to address the issue despite having knowledge of it and the means to correct it. The case established the principle that an occupier may be held liable for the acts of a trespasser if they adopt or continue the nuisance.
