In Sateeshkumar v Wigan Metropolitan BC [2026], HHJ Pearce overturned a County Court decision that allowed a homeowner to recover the costs of treating Japanese Knotweed (“JKW”) which had spread onto their property from neighbouring land owned by the council. The judgment addresses a question left unresolved by the Supreme Court in Davies v Bridgend County BC [2024]: can remedial costs be recovered where JKW encroached before the defendant became liable in nuisance?
The claimant’s property adjoined Vulcan Park, which was owned and maintained by the council. JKW spread from the park onto the claimant's land. The claimant sought damages for diminution in value and treatment costs.
It was accepted that the council neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known of the infestation until 2018. By that point, the JKW had already spread onto the claimant’s property.
At first instance, the District Judge dismissed the claim for diminution in value, following Davies. The loss had occurred before the council knew or ought reasonably to have known of the infestation and therefore before any actionable nuisance arose.
However, the District Judge awarded treatment costs. He considered the continuing presence of JKW constituted an ongoing nuisance, entitling the claimant to recover such costs.
On appeal, HHJ Pearce disagreed. Drawing on Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd [2023] and Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001], HHJ Pearce emphasised the distinction between a continuing harmful situation and a continuing nuisance. A continuing nuisance requires an ongoing state of affairs on the defendant’s land which continues to interfere with the claimant’s property.
While this requirement is readily satisfied in tree root cases, HHJ Pearce considered JKW to be different. Once established, JKW becomes self-sustaining and persists independently from its original source. The continuing presence of JKW on the claimant’s property was therefore not caused by any continuing emanation from the council’s land.
Applying ordinary causation principles, treatment costs would have been incurred regardless of any failure by the council to act, because the encroachment had already occurred before the council was in breach.
Sateeshkumar is an important reminder that nuisance is not a regime of strict liability. The fact a claimant continues to experience the consequences of an encroachment does not necessarily mean the defendant is responsible for the costs of remediation.
The decision addresses a question left unresolved by Davies. HHJ Pearce held that where JKW encroached before a defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known of the infestation, treatment costs are generally irrecoverable because the encroachment pre-dated any actionable breach and did not constitute a continuing nuisance.
The judgment provides greater certainty for those dealing with JKW infestations. However, that certainty comes at a cost. While the decision reflects orthodox principles of fault and causation, it may leave innocent homeowners bearing significant remediation costs with no recourse against the originating landowner where encroachment pre-dated any actionable breach.
Eilidh Brown - Assistant Lawyer
Designed to elevate the policyholder experience and empower handlers, ClaimPilot transforms the claims journey with state-of-the-art AI, streamlined processes and reduced operational bottlenecks – all in one powerful platform.
