“Occupiers liable for continuing third-party nuisances they know about.”
A local authority wrongfully placed a drainage pipe on the defendants' land without permission. The defendants knew of the pipe and benefited from it. The pipe became blocked and flooded the claimant's adjoining land.
Whether an occupier can be liable in nuisance for continuing a state of affairs created by third parties, and what knowledge and conduct is required for such liability.
The House of Lords held the defendants liable. Although they did not create the nuisance, they adopted and continued it with knowledge of its existence and potential dangers.
This case is fundamental to understanding when occupiers become liable for nuisances they did not create. It establishes key principles about knowledge, adoption, and the duty to abate continuing nuisances.
You're reading the free summary of Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.