Tort: nuisance
Tort: nuisance
Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Railtrack plc, The Times 12 October 2000 QBD
The droppings from pigeons roosting under a railway bridge over Balham High Road affected people walking under the bridge and also made a mess of the pavement under the bridge. The local authority claimed that this amounted to a public and/or private nuisance and/or negligence.
Railtrack denied responsibility for any nuisance even if it could be shown to exist. They also denied negligence or, alternatively, claimed that if it was negligence then the local authority was partially liable to contribute towards the cost of a clean up.
Mr Justice Gibbs said that although the problem was not the result of Railtrack's act or default their bridge had become infested with pigeons so as to cause or amount to a nuisance which substantially interfered with the comfort and convenience of the public or a significant class of the public who used the footpath. Railtrack had failed to remedy this within a reasonable time or at all. Although Railtrack did not have the means to control the general feral pigeon population in the area, it could control and prevent pigeons from roosting under the bridge. The fact that the pigeons were feral did not exempt Railtrack from its responsibility and this was in line with the way legal principles had developed. Furthermore as the pigeons has settled on Railtrack's land he felt there was no valid distinction between this case and Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harbour v. Town Council of Margate (1869) 20 LT(NS) 564. Gibbs J also felt that there was no basis for a distinction between nuisances consisting of damage to property and those such as the present in which inconvenience and interference with comfort was relied on to establish nuisance. Both were forms of nuisance (Goldman v. Hargrave [1967]AC645). Finally, Gibbs J stated that the local authority was under no statutory duty or power to maintain roads or deal with pigeons which would exempt Railtrack from liability or which would make it inappropriate to impose liability on Railtrack. Local authorities have wide powers to take action themselves and specific powers to enable them to take legal proceedings where another party can be shown to bear legal responsibility. A public nuisance had therefore been proved.
This decision seems to be consistent with a growing trend to make land owners liable for things naturally on land, for example Goldman v. Hargraveop cit, Leakey v. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and of Natural Beauty [1980] 1 QB 485 and the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v. Scarborough Borough Council, The Times, 2 March 2000.
