Leakey v National Trust [1979] EWCA Civ 5

Soil and debris fell from the National Trust's hillside onto neighbouring properties due to natural geological instability. The Court of Appeal held that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent naturally occurring hazards on their land from damaging neighbours' property, following Goldman v Hargrave.

Facts

The National Trust owned Burrow Mump, a conical hill near Bridgwater, Somerset. The hill’s geological composition of Keuper Marl made it susceptible to cracking and slipping due to weathering. At the base of the western slope lay two houses belonging to the plaintiffs. From 1968, the defendants knew the hillside posed a threat to the plaintiffs’ properties. Following the exceptionally hot summer of 1976 and subsequent heavy rainfall, a large crack appeared in the bank. Despite requests to take preventive action, the defendants refused, believing they had no legal liability for damage caused by natural conditions on their land. A substantial fall of soil and debris subsequently occurred, damaging the plaintiffs’ properties.

The Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs claimed in nuisance, seeking a mandatory injunction, removal of fallen material, and damages. The defendants argued that under English law, neither owner nor occupier of land is liable for damage caused solely by natural causes to neighbouring property, relying on dicta from Rylands v Fletcher regarding natural user of land.

Issues

The central issue was whether the decision of the Privy Council in Goldman v Hargrave accurately states the law of England, namely whether an occupier owes a duty of care to neighbours in respect of naturally occurring hazards on their land.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge’s decision that the defendants were liable.

Reasoning of Lord Justice Megaw

Lord Justice Megaw held that Goldman v Hargrave correctly represents English law. He traced the development of the law through Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan, which approved Lord Justice Scrutton’s dissenting judgment in Job Edwards v Birmingham Navigation Proprietors, marking a turning point in the law. The judge found no valid distinction between hazards caused by trespassers and those arising from natural causes.

Regarding Rylands v Fletcher, Lord Justice Megaw held that its ratio decidendi concerned strict liability for non-natural use of land, but did not preclude liability where natural causes created dangers, provided the occupier had knowledge of the risk. He stated that if such a distinction were sought to be made, it would make the law incoherent, artificial, uncertain and unpredictable.

Scope of the Duty

The duty is one of reasonable care, taking into account: the extent of the risk; the foreseeability of damage; practicability of prevention; the difficulty and cost of measures; and the time available for action. Importantly, the defendant’s financial resources may be relevant to what is reasonable. A small landowner may discharge his duty by permitting neighbours to undertake works on his land.

Lord Justice Shaw’s Judgment

Lord Justice Shaw expressed misgivings but ultimately agreed. He acknowledged that Goldman v Hargrave, though not binding, represents persuasive authority and may represent the climax of a movement in English law expanding liability for nuisance.

Implications

This decision established that landowners and occupiers owe a measured duty of care to prevent naturally occurring hazards on their land from causing damage to neighbours. The duty is not strict but requires reasonable action once the occupier knows or ought to know of the danger. The standard of reasonableness takes into account the defendant’s individual circumstances, including financial resources. The case effectively overruled Giles v Walker and disapproved the reasoning in Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwynn, consolidating the principle that the origin of a nuisance in natural causes does not automatically exempt the occupier from liability.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The National Trust was held liable in nuisance for damage caused by soil and debris falling from their land onto the plaintiffs' properties due to naturally occurring geological instability.

Source: Leakey v National Trust [1979] EWCA Civ 5