Background
Colin Eaton and Barbara Thorneycroft own The Cottage at The Green in Wrenbury, Cheshire. From about 2012 until late 2024, their driveway and front garden flooded repeatedly when water ran from The Green, a publicly maintained highway for which Cheshire East Council was responsible. The couple complained numerous times, but flooding continued until the council jetted the drains and gullies in late 2024.
After a trial in Chester County Court, Mr Recorder Shaw held the council liable in private nuisance and awarded £42,500: £25,000 for diminution in the property’s value and £8,750 to each claimant for loss of amenity. The council appealed on liability and quantum, also alleging factual errors and procedural unfairness in the conduct of the trial.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Mansfield dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Applying the measured-duty principles stated in Vernon Knights Associates v Cornwall Council [2013] EWCA Civ 950, he held that the recorder had permissibly undertaken the required multifactorial assessment, including the foreseeable risk, available preventive measures, their cost, and competing demands on the council’s resources. The evidence supported findings that restrictions from roots or debris contributed to the flooding and that jetting in late 2024 resolved the problem despite subsequent heavy rain.
The High Court rejected the council’s argument that liability depended on distinguishing rain falling on the highway from water reaching it from adjoining land. The council’s measured common-law duty was not confined to water originating on the highway, and the evidence showed that water pooling on or running down The Green entered the lower-lying property. The recorder was entitled to conclude that the council’s ineffective response to a known, recurring problem over more than a decade breached that duty.
The damages award also stood. The recorder could assess a £25,000 loss in value because the flooding history would require disclosure and was likely to affect a sale, even though the valuation evidence had shortcomings. He could infer loss of amenity to both residents from Mr Eaton’s evidence. Although the £17,500 amenity award exceeded the pleaded £15,200 by £2,300 without prior submissions, that procedural irregularity was not serious and did not make the result wrong or unjust.
Key Takeaways
- A highway authority owes a measured common-law duty to take reasonable steps to prevent natural occurrences on its land from damaging neighboring property, assessed in light of risk, preventive options, cost, and competing public demands.
- Floodwater need not have originated as rain falling on the highway; water arriving from adjacent land may still engage the authority’s duty once it collects on or flows from the highway.
- An appellate court will not disturb fact-sensitive findings or damages assessments merely because it might have reached a different conclusion; the challenged decision must satisfy the applicable appellate standard for error or serious irregularity.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that limited public resources do not automatically excuse a highway authority’s prolonged failure to address a known and recurring drainage problem. Where relatively routine maintenance can prevent repeated flooding, a court may find liability without requiring major infrastructure works or a general duty to prioritize one property above all others.
It also illustrates the latitude trial judges retain when valuing property blight and loss of amenity, while warning that a court ordinarily should invite submissions before awarding more than the amount pleaded.