Search results
Aug 16, 2019 · In Giles v Walker, it was held that there was no liability under the rule in respect of trees, shrubs and other plants that are naturally found on the defendant’s land, even if part of these do escape to the claimant’s land.
- Rylands V Fletcher
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. Liability under...
- Rylands V Fletcher
Giles v Walker. Case summaries. Giles v Walker (1890) 24 QBD 656. Seeds from some thistles on the defendant’s land blew into neighbouring land owned by the claimant and damaged his crops.
Giles v Walker (1890) | A-Level Law | Key Case Summaries | Tort Law. Facts: The claimant’s crops and land were damaged by weeds growing on the adjoining land spreading to the claimants land. The...
A legal case from 1889 about a farmer's liability for thistles growing on his land and damaging his neighbour's land. The court ruled that the farmer had no duty to cut the thistles and was not negligent.
A review of a book that argues that the law of nuisance can be coherently explained in terms of a hierarchy of competing rights and uses of land. The reviewer praises the book's methodology and analysis, but questions its relevance for legal, social or economic history.
Aug 11, 2003 · 93 The court declined to follow the old English authority of Giles v. Walker (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 656, which had held that no nuisance or negligence action lay to force a neighbouring landowner to cut thistles “which are the natural growth of the soil”.
As the thistles in Giles v. Walker were not a nuisance, Giles could have no right to enter and cut them. If they had been a nuisance, public or private, Giles would have had the right to abate them.
