Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 408 (Mar)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 477 (TCC)
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Judge:

Judge Richard Seymour QC

Representation Peter Coulson QC and Samuel Townend (instructed by Dechert) for the claimant.
  Kirk Reynolds QC and Richard Stead (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs) for the third defendant.
Judgment Dates: 26 March 2002

Catchwords

Railway - Accommodation works - Duty of railway authority to maintain works - Three railway companies running adjacent lines before nationalisation - One line and associated sidings sold on for development after nationalisation - Railway authority granting permission for connection into culvert for surface water drainage - Claimant occupying warehouse within development - Warehouse flooding - Whether authority strictly liable - Whether floods causing additional damage to already defective floor - s 68.

The Case

The fact that the relevant railway and land having the benefit of accommodation works for the purposes of s68 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1945 had come into the same ownership did not extinguish the obligation to maintain those works under that section. The court also commented that there was no reason to construe the reference to 'the railway' in s68 of the Act in such a way that where different railway companies constructed adjacent lines, each did not potentially owe the other obligations of the kind for which s68 provided.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.