Background

In a recent legal victory, the Claimant sought recovery for alleged tree root subsidence damage to their building, arguing that our Client’s actions had been negligent. Specifically, the Claimant asserted that the damage was inevitable and that our client had failed to take reasonable preventative measures, including more robust tree maintenance or removal. They based their case on a recent subsidence model and sought to demonstrate that tree roots were responsible for the damage. The Claimant also attempted to challenge our Client’s initial denial by arguing that damage was unavoidable and that a more rigorous tree maintenance plan, including the removal of trees, should have been in place to prevent subsidence.

How We Helped

Our defence was built on the premise that the Claimant’s assertions lacked sufficient technical support and failed to meet the standard required to establish negligence. We first contested the subsidence model presented by the Claimant, arguing that it was not accurate, and the dataset behind it was not disclosed, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the Claimant’s assertion that the damage was “inevitable” was refuted with technical input that demonstrated there was only a “mere risk” of subsidence, rather than a “real risk.”

Additionally, we challenged the Claimant’s argument that tree removal should have been a preventative measure. We cited relevant case law, specifically Pattichis v London Borough of Enfield 2016 and Berent v Family Mosaic & London Borough of Islington 2012, which established that risk had to be real, not mere or hypothetical, and that removing trees could be considered unreasonable and disproportionate if this were not the case. We also presented expert advice from a previous webinar, which argued that overzealous tree removal could actually exacerbate subsidence and health issues by increasing local air and surface temperatures, and potentially creating more long-term risks.

The Claimant also attempted to rely on historic, academic studies to support their position, however we pointed out that the study itself cautioned against its commercial or litigative use, due to its small sample size and failure to account for all variables. We successfully argued that the study’s focus was on reducing tree canopy size and lateral root spread to preserve trees, not advocating for their removal.

Outcome

After a sustained and robust defence, the Claimant’s case could not be substantiated. The challenges to the initial denial were unsuccessful, and the Claimant was unable to provide the necessary technical evidence to support their allegations. As a result, the Claimant ultimately abandoned the case.

The outcome was a significant win for our client, saving them £42,538.72, including costs. The case demonstrates the importance of clear technical evidence and the need to critically evaluate and challenge insufficient or speculative claims in subsidence litigation. Our thorough defence not only protected our client’s interests, but also highlighted the potential risks of overly cautious or aggressive tree management strategies.