The court found that D should have pruned the trees regularly from 1998 to 2005 because D was aware of the foreseeable risk of property damage from their roots, particularly trees within 35 metres of a house. There was no documented evidence of D`s practice between 1998 and 2006 because D believed at the time that he was not required to operate a management system for the trees in question. Starting in 2006, D`s policy required trees to be pruned every four years. The judge also stated that if D had pursued a cyclical pruning policy since 1998, requiring its contractors to make a 25% reduction, the contractors would likely have made a larger reduction than their order by 25%, which would have avoided damage. The General Court therefore held D liable for the damage suffered in 2003 and 2006. This is a very important and welcome decision with respect to allegations of subsidence related to trees. This case once again highlights how the law should be applied and sets a positive precedent for lower courts (which rule on the majority of these lawsuits). It also helps to rebalance the view of the law on trees and reason between “neighbors”. As Director of Islington`s Tree Service, I felt it was important to give my views on the outcome of this case. This decision is of considerable importance for local authorities and housing associations that manage their tree population. It confirms that the mere proximity of a tree to a building does not increase the risk of damage from a potential to a “real risk” of damage. It is necessary to assess whether there is a “real risk”. Factors to consider include whether there have been previous claims nearby and other factors that could mean a tree poses “a real risk.” The importance of frequent and strict pruning of trees that have been classified as “real risk” before damage occurs is reiterated.

However, if the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm is low, it is reasonable to tailor a circumcision regime to the risk and not to maintain it at all in certain possible scenarios. The social benefits of a “forest” environment were highlighted in that it would not be reasonable to cut down all trees that pose a risk (but not a “real risk”) in order to eliminate or minimize that risk. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to find that, from 1998, the damage caused by the roots of D`s trees was foreseeable for D. Since then, D has failed in its obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent the roots of its trees from damaging C`s property. □ has not had to apply special provisions for tree management; the trial judge had considered only the options available to D. Under the lease, D3/D4 was required to conduct regular inspections of all trees and to inform D1/D2 of dead or dangerous trees. 14. Partly as a result of the ABI Agreement on domestic subsidies, actions against individual owners of residential real estate often do not go to court. What can be learned from this decision? In this case, the applicant`s property is located on a road of 276 trees and approximately 300 parcels. The properties are What responsibility do I have with wildlife and trees? The Wild Fauna and Countryside Act 1981 applies, which makes it a criminal offence to damage or destroy bat roosts and the nest of a wild bird during its use or construction. Avoid working in trees at certain times of the year and check old trees for cracks and holes before doing any work on trees, or bring it to the attention of the tree surgeon before work.

10. The judge concluded, on the basis of the facts, that Ms Kane had no real subjective knowledge of the risk of damage to the Khans` property caused by her trees. I believe this case could result in a significant reduction in the number of abatement measures and the value of these claims against boards that manage trees reasonably. Tree owners can now argue that they are not liable for damage that occurred before they knew it, solely because of a potential risk. In this case, liability for damage was not transferred to the tree owners until the potential risk became a real risk. Probably the most significant case of poisonous trees is that of Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Ground [1878]. The defendants planted a yew tree on their own land and about four meters from the border fence. Over time, as the tree grew, some of the branches grew to and then over the border fence. Parts of the tree thus became accessible to the plaintiff`s horse, which was grazing on the adjacent field (also on these overhanging branches). As a result, the horse died and the plaintiff brought an action for damages against the cemetery. Since the accused let the tree grow across the border, they were responsible, especially since they should have known that the horses were often searching for yew leaves within their reach.

This judgment was indeed consistent with the precedent in Rylands v. Fletcher [1866], according to which a person who brings something dangerous or harmful to his land and allows it to escape will be held liable for any damage resulting therefrom. However, the judge in the case noted that if the tree had not been toxic, the plaintiff would not necessarily have fallen and would rather have had to mitigate the nuisance (overhang) itself. As a homeowner, you are responsible for ensuring that the trees on your property do not cause damage or injury to neighbours. As part of your duty of care, it is important that you regularly inspect trees near the boundaries to ensure that broken, dead or endangered branches are removed. Leakey v. National Trust [1980] concerned primarily a landslide and who, if any, was responsible for the damage caused. However, the court used the case to broaden the issue of natural phenomena, which ultimately contained findings relevant to trees. The court concluded that there is a general obligation to ensure that naturally transmitted or man-made hazards do not originate on the owner`s land and do not affect neighbouring property owners or guests on the premises. The duty is to “do what is appropriate in all circumstances, and no more than reasonable, to prevent or minimize the known risk of damage or injury to the neighbour or his property.” Somewhat critically, however, it stated that naturally transferred dangers that could have been avoided could only be applied to them if “the defendant knew or should have known of the existence of the defect and the danger it creates”.

Therefore, it can be expected that only tree hazards that are appropriate with the knowledge expected of the owner of the land or those used to maintain these areas will be punishable. Such a standard was indeed explained in Khan & Khan v London Borough of Harrow & Helen Sheila Kane, where the court held that the issue of reasonable foreseeability is not a subjective test, but an objective test of what should have been known to a reasonable person in the defendant`s situation: “In this case, the person concerned is a reasonably prudent landowner. However, a defendant`s subjective knowledge may impose a higher standard, the court concluded. Therefore, local authorities and tree organisations may in fact be bound to such a high standard. Such a precedent has since been echoed by many other recent cases, including: While you`re allowed to plant trees anywhere on your property, it makes sense to check the consequences of planting something big. For example, a tree could block a neighbor`s light or damage their property as it grows. To avoid problems, you should avoid planting too close to a limit and try to minimize the effects. The Court of Appeal reiterated that another factor that must be weighed in this process is the “social benefit” of the action leading to the risk. If the applicant had been right and if it were necessary to cut down trees that were merely in the immediate vicinity and did not present a “real risk”, this would amount to ignoring the social and recreational value of the trees. Erskine v. Adeane [1873] is also interesting because the claim also included the death of cattle belonging to Erskine.