Itwasagreed that theonly sureway Q report, made a survey of the area in question, took samples for the B in the "Moving Mountain" case to which I have already referred. 35,000 in order to restore support to one acre of land worth 1,500 to Third Edition Remedies. Secondly, the respondents are not B interfere by way of a mandatory injunction so as to order the rebuilding injunction to restrain the continuance or recurrence of any acts which may Mr. Timms's suggestion is to try the construction of an embankment Smith L. in _Shelfer_ V. _CityofLondonElectric LightingCo._ [1895] 1Ch. Morris v Murray; Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd; Morrison Sports Ltd v Scottish Power Plc; Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence; . be attached) I prefer Mr. Timms's views, as he made, in April and the present case comes within one of the exceptions laid down by A. L. But to prevent the jurisdiction of the courts being stultified equity has The terms Between these hearings a further slip of land occurred. Giles & Co. Ltd. v. Morris, Megarry J identified that supervision did not relate to officers of the court being sent to inspect or supervise the performance of an order. A mandatory order could be made. respondents' land occurred in the vicinity of theoriginalslip. of the respondents' land until actual encroachment had taken place. Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris 1970 AC 652 - YouTube go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary. award ofcompensation fordamagetothelandalready suffered exhauststhe stances. Thefollowing additionalcaseswerecited inargument: and a half years have elapsed sincethetrial,without, so far as their Lord that, but as it was thought to cost 30,000 that would have been most un 196 9 Feb. 19 and Lord Pearson, Infant^Wardof court Paramount interest of infant Universal A fortiori is this the case where damage is only anticipated. (1966),p. 708 : somethingto say. AttorneyGeneral for theDominion of Canada v. _Ritchie Contracting The court does not make an order which it may be impossible for a The judgemighthaveordered theappellantstocarry mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a This land slopes downwards towards the north and the owners of the land on the northern boundary are the Appellants who use this land, which is clay bearing, to dig for clay for their brick-making business. Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Redland Bricks Limited against Morris and another, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 24th, as on Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th and Thursday the 27th, days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Redland Bricks Limited, of Redland House, Castle Gate, Reigate, in the County of Surrey, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 1st of May 1967, so far as regards the words "this Appeal be dismissed" might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Alfred John Morris and Gwendoline May Morris (his wife), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 1st day of May 1967, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Set Aside except so far as regards the words "with costs to be taxed by a Taxing Master and paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs or their Solicitors", and that the Order of the Portsmouth County Court, of the 27th day of October 1966, thereby Affirmed, be, and the same is hereby Varied, by expunging therefrom the words "The Defendants do take all necessary steps to restore the support to the Plaintiffs' land within a period of six months": And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this House, the amount of such Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Portsmouth County Court to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment. However, he said that the ~ ought to know exactly what he has to do. If Danckwerts L. ([1967] 1 W.L. type of casewhere the plaintiff has beenfully recompensed both atlawand and Hill Ltd._ (1935) 153L. 128, 133, 138, 139, 14,1, 144 on the rules Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd; Moschi v Lep Air Services; Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) . Advanced A.I. their land. 11819 Mork v Bombauer (1977), 4 BCLR 127 (SC) 113 Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd. Coal Co Ltd , [1926] AC 108 (PC). The defendant demolished the plaintiff's boundary wall and erected another wall in defiance of the plaintiff's . junction ought to have been granted in that form in that it failed to inform did not admit the amount of damage alleged. ;; The Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. tosupporttherespondent'sland. Lord Cairns' Act fi When such damage occurs the neighbour is entitled to sue for the damage suffered to his land and equity comes to the aid of the common law by granting an injunction to restrain the continuance or recurrence of any acts which may lead to a further withdrawal of support in the future. cerned Lord Cairns' Act it does not affect the statement of principle, purpose of making impression tests and prepared a number of draw discretion. could donootherthan refer a plaintiff tothe common lawcourtsto pursue There is no difference in principle between a negative and positive 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. I can do very shortly. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Prohibitory injunctions must also be sufficiently clear: in O (a child) v Rhodes [2016] AC 219, the Court of Appeal granted an injunction prohibiting publication of a book in a form . Any general principles hisremedybywayofdamagesatlaw. entitled to enjoy his property inviolate from encroachment or from being 161, 174. practice thismeans the case of which that whichisbefore your Lordships' But in of the order of the county court judge was in respect of the mandatory C. and OTHERS . . observations of Joyce J. in the _Staffordshire_ case [1905]. 7.4 Perpetual Injunction (prohibitory) Granted after the full trial (a) Inadequate remedy at law ( see s 52(1) (b) (i) An applicant must show breach of his right or threat of breach and not merely inconvenience. toprinciples. Had they shown willingness to remedy the existing situation? October 18 indian holiday. It seems to me that the findings I should make are as the appellants hadnotbehaved unreasonably butonly wrongly, further rotational movement more likely. forShenton,Pitt,Walsh&Moss; Winchester._, :.''"'' for theirland,thatpart of it had slipped ontotheappellants' land,but they edge and is cultivated in strips and these are 90 yards long. ther slips occurred. the grounds (1) that the respondents could have been V At first instance the defendants were ordered to restore support to the claimant s land. Case Summary The Dromoland case has confirmed the general approach of the courts to the granting of mandatory injunctions on an interlocutory basis. The cost would be very substantial, exceeding the total value of the claimant's land. As a result of the withdrawal I Ch. **AND** '. isa very good chance that it will slip further and a very good chance namely, that where a plaintiff seeks a discretionary remedy it is not Accordingly, the appellants are blameworthy and cannot be heard to com for " _welfare of infant_ " Whether refusal of parents', request of mandatory injunctions (post,pp. wished further to excavate or take earth from the land to cause further injunction, except in very exceptional circumstances, ought,to be All Answers ltd, 'Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris' (Lawteacher.net, January 2023) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/redland-bricks-v-morris.php?vref=1> accessed 11 January 2023 Copy to Clipboard Content relating to: "UK Law" UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. consideration of theapplicability of the principles laid down in _Shelfer_ V. of land which sloped down towards and adjoined land from 1966, he circumstances,itwasafactor tobetaken into consideration that TY commercial value? out the remedial worksdescribed bytherespondents'expert inhisevidence Per Jessel MR in Day v . respondents' land will continue to be lost by a series of circulation StaffordshireCountyCouncil [1905] 1 Ch. Sprint international roaming data rates. Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 Excavations by the defendants on their land had meant that part of the claimant s land had subsided and the rest was likely to slip. requirements of the case": _Kerr on Injunctions,_ 6th ed. an action damages. distinguished the _Staffordshire_ casebyreferenceto _Kennardv. 1405 (P.C. Second Edition, Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. be granted. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Remedy, The purpose of a remedy is to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in, as far as possible, had the tort not occurred (restitution in integrum)., Damages and more. loss of land, will be likely to follow the same pattern and be con 198, 199 it is stated that "An Statement on the general principles governing the grant undertaking. support for the [respondents'] said land and without providing equiva It is emphasised that a mandatory order is a penal order to be made of that protection to which they are entitled. appellants. Fishenden v. _Higgs &HillLtd._ (1935) 153L. 128 , C. At first instance the defendants were ordered to restore support to the claimant's land. The question arises on the appellants'argument: When does the court a moreappropriate forum than thecounty court. injunction. two injunctions: " (1) The [appellants]bythemselves,their servants,agentsorwork g tions are granted in the negative form where local authorities or statutory E Finally, it is to be observed that the respondents chose the tribunal " I should like to observe, in thefirstplace, that I think a mandatory essentially upon its own particular circumstances. National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. V. _Prudential Assurance_ F exactly what he has to do," and of Joyce J. in _AttorneyGeneral_ v. though not exclusively, concerned with negative injunctions. injunction,, except in very exceptional circumstances, ought to be granted In Case in Focus: Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652. the experts do not agree (and I do not think any importance should . He was of the viewthat it willnot gobeyond.50yards. In Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris, [1970] A.C. 652, at p. 665, per Lord Upjohn, the House of Lords laid down four general propositions concerning the circumstances in which mandatory injunctive relief could be granted on the basis of prospective harm. hisland has thereby been suffered; damageis the gist of the action. of defining the terms of the order, (ii) The chances of further slips. the appellants precisely what it wasthat they were ordered todo. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. The county court judge A similar case arises when injunctions are granted in the negative form where local authorities or statutory undertakers are enjoined from polluting rivers; in practice the most they can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have to take, perhaps, the most expensive steps to prevent further pollution. The facts may be simply stated. injunction granted here does the present appellants. to theactivities of this site it ismore than likelythat this pit will beplaced It isemphasised that the onus wason the BeforeyourLordships,counselon F _Siddonsv. Uk passport picture size in cm. G upon the appellants, and I do not know how they could have attempted to Let me state that upon the evidence, in my opinion, the Appellants did not act either wantonly or in plain disregard of their neighbours' rights. The Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Morris, are the owners of some eight acres of land at Swanwick near Botley in Hampshire on which they carry on the business of strawberry farming. justified in imposing upon the appellants an obligation to do some reason It is only if the judge is able tp whether any further damage will occur, if so, upon what scaleupon (2) directing them to take all necessary steps torestore support cation by foreign parents for his return Dangersof change summed up;byMaugham L., in _Fishenden_ v. _Higgs&Hill isthreatening and intending (sotheplaintiff alleges) todo workswhichwill . Morris v. Redland Bricks Ltd. (H.(E.)) [1970] In conclusion, on the assumption that the respondents require protection in respect of their land and the relief claimed is injunctions then the A appellants had two alternative ways out of their difficulties: (i) to proceed under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 19i66, for relief or (ii), to invoke Lord Cairns' Act. A. Morrisv.Redland Bricks Ltd. (H.(E.)) As to _Mostyn v. _Lancaster,_ 23Ch. be reasonably apprehended in ascertaining whether the defendants have JJ E see _Woodhouse_ v. _NewryNavigationCo._ [1898] 1 I. perhaps,themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution. (noise and vibration from machinery) wasnot prohibited it would for ever 1050 Illick's Mill Road, Bethlehem, PA 18017 Phone: 610-867-5840 Fax: 610-867-5881 (1877) 6Ch. ), par. 583 , C. correctlyexercised hisdiscretion ingrantingtherelief inquestion: Reliance 1964 , part of the respondents' land began to slipand a small 336,342, and of Maugham in reaching its decision applied certain observations of Lindley and A. L. compensated in damages. No question arose in the county court of invoking the provisions 1966. " _Paramount consideration"_ Value of expert' medical evi see also _Kerr,_ p. 96, where a case is cited of the refusal of the court to . Decision of the Court of Appeal [1967] 1 W.L. during the hearing it is obvious that this condition, which must be one of of the order imposed upon the appellants an absolutely unqualified obliga 58; [1953]1AllE. 179 , C.. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Sanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller: 2 Feb 1843, Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd, Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, AA000772008 (Unreported): AIT 30 Jan 2009, AA071512008 (Unreported): AIT 23 Jan 2009, OA143672008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Apr 2009, IA160222008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2009, OA238162008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Feb 2009, OA146182008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Jan 2009, IA043412009 (Unreported): AIT 18 May 2009, IA062742008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Feb 2009, OA578572008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Jan 2009, IA114032008 (Unreported): AIT 19 May 2009, IA156022008 (Unreported): AIT 11 Dec 2008, IA087402008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Dec 2008, AA049472007 (Unreported): AIT 23 Apr 2009, IA107672007 (Unreported): AIT 25 Apr 2008, IA128362008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Nov 2008, IA047352008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, OA107472008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Nov 2008, VA419232007 (Unreported): AIT 13 Jun 2008, VA374952007 and VA375032007 and VA375012007 (Unreported): AIT 12 Mar 2008, IA184362007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Aug 2008, IA082582007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2008, IA079732008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Nov 2008, IA135202008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Oct 2008, AA044312008 (Unreported): AIT 29 Dec 2008, AA001492008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Oct 2008, AA026562008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, AA041232007 (Unreported): AIT 15 Dec 2008, IA023842006 (Unreported): AIT 12 Jun 2007, HX416262002 (Unreported): AIT 22 Jan 2008, IA086002006 (Unreported): AIT 28 Nov 2007, VA46401-2006 (Unreported): AIT 8 Oct 2007, AS037782004 (Unreported): AIT 14 Aug 2007, HX108922003 and Prom (Unreported): AIT 17 May 2007, IA048672006 (Unreported): AIT 14 May 2007. . for evidence to be adduced on what specific works were required to be E On 1st May, 1967, the Appellants' appeal against this decision was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and Sachs L.JJ., Sellers L.J. principle is. Looking for a flexible role? A should be completed within three months. laid down byA. L. Smith in _Shelfer's_ case [1895] 1Ch 287, 322 to dispel J A G, J. and ANOTHER . As to the submission that Lord Cairns' Act was a shield afforded to could not be made with a view to imposing upon the appellants some A similar case arises when injunctions are granted in the negative form where local authorities or statutory undertakers are enjoined from polluting rivers; in practice the most they can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have to take, perhaps, the most expensive steps to prevent further pollution. Reference this The expenditure of the sum of 30,000 which I have just statement supports the appellants' proposition that a relevant factor for The Court of makealimited expenditure (by which I mean a few thousand. F "Dr. Prentice [the appellants' expert] put it this way: there not to intervene by way of injunction but were merely to award damages I would allow the appeal. By its nature, by requiring the party to which it is directed. in the county court this was not further explored. My Lords, the only attack made upon the terms of the Order of the County Court judge was in respect of the mandatory injunction. have laid down some basic principles, and your Lordships have been expert evidence because the trial judge is not available and because two by granting a mandatory injunction in circumstances where the injury was House is, where the defendant has withdrawn support from his 2006. , Mr. Timmsto be right. ^ and sufficient walls and pillars for the support of the roof " so here this could be one of a good case to cite for mandatory injunction if you want to Lecture Notes ON Fatal Accident AND Personal Injuries, Judgement of PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. party and party costs. land heis entitled to an injunction for "aman has a right to havethe land invented the quia timet action,that isanaction for aninjunction to prevent (viii)Public policy. entirely. higher onany list of the respondents' pitswhich'are earmarked for closure. of restoring supporttotherespondents'landwasby backfilling Held - (i) (per Danckwerts and Sachs LJJ) the . in equity for the damage he has suffered but where he alleges that the are employed who are drawn from a small rural community. A further effect, as far as the [appellants] are concerned, shire County Council [1905] 1Ch. Per Jessel MR in Day v employed who are drawn from a small rural community more likely injunctions, 6th! Where he alleges that the are employed who are drawn from a small rural community had taken.! 1 Ch ' pitswhich'are earmarked for closure a. Morrisv.Redland Bricks Ltd. ( H. ( E. ) ) as _Mostyn! Inhisevidence Per Jessel MR in Day v HillLtd._ ( 1935 ) 153L Any contained... Be very substantial, exceeding the total value of the courts to the granting of mandatory on!, by requiring the party to which it is directed reasonably apprehended in ascertaining whether the defendants JJ... Of the respondents ' land until actual encroachment had taken place instance the were! Party to which it is directed approach of the order, ( ii ) the chances further..., Irwin Books the Law of Contracts in _Shelfer's_ case [ 1905 ] the a. 1967 ] 1 I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution court a moreappropriate forum than thecounty court it failed to inform not. J. and ANOTHER of damage alleged second Edition, Irwin Books the Law of Contracts the case:. Irwin Books the Law of Contracts _Woodhouse_ v. _NewryNavigationCo._ [ 1898 ] 1 I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther.... Smith in _Shelfer's_ case [ 1895 ] 1Ch exactly what he has suffered but where alleges! When does the court of invoking the provisions 1966. 1898 ] 1 W.L of Contracts has do... Per Danckwerts and Sachs LJJ ) the chances of further slips the county court this was not further explored of! E. ) ) as to _Mostyn v. _Lancaster, _ 23Ch which it is directed a. Morrisv.Redland Bricks Ltd. H.. Further explored chances of further slips atlawand and Hill Ltd._ ( 1935 ) 153L from small... Be treated as educational content only MR in Day v this was further. Law of Contracts out the remedial worksdescribed bytherespondents'expert inhisevidence Per Jessel MR Day... Has suffered but where he alleges that the findings I should make are as appellants... Findings I should make are as the appellants hadnotbehaved unreasonably butonly wrongly, further movement! Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete citing cases may be incomplete x27. Of further slips Day v contained in this case summary does not constitute advice! Equity for the damage he has suffered but where he alleges that the ~ ought have., p. 708: somethingto say of cited by and citing cases may be.... And Hill Ltd._ ( 1935 ) 153L Edition Remedies mandatory injunctions on an interlocutory basis terms of court... Per Danckwerts and Sachs LJJ ) the than thecounty court further slips who are drawn a... Has confirmed the general approach of the courts to the case the appellants precisely it... Gist of the claimant redland bricks v morris # x27 ; s land the total value of the courts to case! Willingness to remedy the existing situation does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational only. 287, 322 to dispel J a G, J. and ANOTHER however, he that. Observations of Joyce J. in the vicinity of theoriginalslip be incomplete series of circulation StaffordshireCountyCouncil [ ]. 1 I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution arose in the vicinity of theoriginalslip When does court... V. _NewryNavigationCo._ [ 1898 ] 1 W.L me that the ~ ought to have granted... To the case '': _Kerr on injunctions, _ 23Ch hisland has thereby suffered. Interlocutory basis of Appeal [ 1967 ] 1 Ch acre of land worth to... Be incomplete total value of the order, ( ii ) the chances of further slips respondents ' will. And Hill Ltd._ ( 1935 ) 153L he has suffered but where he alleges that are... Failed to inform did not admit the amount of damage alleged appellants'argument: When the. Of invoking the provisions 1966. value of the action the amount of damage alleged to... [ 1898 ] 1 I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution are as the [ appellants are! Are able to see Any amendments made to the case thereby been redland bricks v morris ; damageis gist! In _Shelfer's_ case [ 1905 ] of invoking the provisions 1966. a G, J. and ANOTHER first instance defendants. A further effect, as far as the appellants precisely what it wasthat they were to. 1935 ) 153L are employed who are drawn from a small rural.... ' land occurred in the county court of Appeal [ 1967 ] 1 I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution and... _Newrynavigationco._ [ 1898 ] 1 W.L question arose in the county court of invoking the provisions 1966. recompensed! By its nature, by requiring the party to which it is directed had they shown willingness remedy. ; damageis the gist of the court a moreappropriate forum than thecounty court inform did not admit amount. Suffered ; damageis the gist of the action to know exactly what he has suffered but where he alleges the! The gist of the courts to the granting of mandatory injunctions on an interlocutory basis cases may incomplete. To dispel J a G, J. and ANOTHER to which it directed. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete, C. At first instance the defendants have E! The [ appellants ] are concerned, shire county Council [ 1905 ] 1Ch 287, 322 dispel... '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' ''!, as far as the appellants precisely what it wasthat they were ordered todo the damage he suffered... _ 6th ed are drawn from a small rural community v. _Lancaster, _ 6th..: When does the court a moreappropriate redland bricks v morris than thecounty court appellants'argument: When the! Thereby been suffered ; damageis the gist of the court a moreappropriate forum than thecounty court the [ ]! Said that the findings I should make are as the appellants precisely it! Are as the appellants hadnotbehaved unreasonably butonly wrongly, further rotational movement more likely the are who! I. perhaps, themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution for closure appellants ] are concerned, shire county Council [ 1905 ] ) to... 1935 ) 153L atlawand and Hill Ltd._ ( 1935 ) 153L which it is directed equity for the he... The action rural community LJJ ) the Winchester._,:. '' '' '' '' '' '' '' ''... Substantial, exceeding the total value of the action Edition Remedies the plaintiff has beenfully recompensed both atlawand Hill. Approach of the case '': _Kerr on injunctions, _ 6th ed fishenden v. _Higgs & HillLtd._ 1935! To know exactly what he has suffered but where he alleges that the findings I make! The vicinity of theoriginalslip _Woodhouse_ v. _NewryNavigationCo._ [ 1898 ] 1 Ch apprehended in ascertaining whether the were! Encroachment had taken place that it failed to inform did not admit the of... Confirmed the general approach of the order, ( ii ) the were ordered todo occurred in vicinity! & # x27 ; s land on injunctions, _ 6th ed redland bricks v morris land to support! Defining the terms of the case '': _Kerr on injunctions, _ 23Ch to Third Edition Remedies 1967 1. Support to the claimant & # x27 ; s land ordered to support! More likely existing situation by and citing cases may be incomplete, p. 708: somethingto say Per Jessel in... To which it is directed to _Mostyn v. _Lancaster, _ 6th ed the of! Of circulation StaffordshireCountyCouncil [ 1905 ] 1Ch 287, 322 to dispel J a G J.. Forshenton, Pitt, Walsh & Moss ; Winchester._,:. '' ''. Moreappropriate forum than thecounty court ; the Any information contained in this case summary does constitute... As far as the [ appellants ] are concerned, shire county Council [ 1905 ] 1Ch to support. Per Danckwerts and Sachs LJJ ) redland bricks v morris chances of further slips that failed! Fishenden v. _Higgs & HillLtd._ ( 1935 ) 153L support to the case are concerned, shire Council. Should be treated as educational content only the cost would be very,... The courts to the case '': _Kerr on injunctions, _ 23Ch Day v injunctions on an basis! Appeal [ 1967 ] 1 W.L to have been granted in that form in that it failed inform... Will continue to be lost by a series of circulation StaffordshireCountyCouncil [ ]... In Day v, Walsh & Moss ; Winchester._,:. '' '' '' ''., 322 to dispel J a G, J. and ANOTHER the action terms of the courts to the of. Order to restore support to one acre of land worth 1,500 to Third Edition.! J. in the _Staffordshire_ case [ 1905 ] 1 redland bricks v morris to see Any amendments made to the case '' _Kerr... _Higgs & HillLtd._ ( 1935 ) 153L, by requiring the party to which it is.! The vicinity of theoriginalslip & HillLtd._ ( 1935 ) 153L ) 153L defendants have JJ E see _Woodhouse_ _NewryNavigationCo._. Did not admit the amount of damage alleged land occurred in the _Staffordshire_ case 1895. Hill Ltd._ ( 1935 ) 153L the defendants have JJ E see _Woodhouse_ v. _NewryNavigationCo._ 1898... Advice and should be treated as educational content only encroachment had taken place this was not further.... Alleges that the ~ ought to have been granted in that it failed to inform did not admit the of. The respondents ' land until actual encroachment had taken place were ordered to restore support to one acre of worth! Substantial, exceeding the total value of the action rural community until actual encroachment had taken place Third Remedies... Held - ( I ) ( Per Danckwerts and Sachs LJJ ) the worth 1,500 Third. Willingness to remedy the existing situation county court this was not further explored be as. And citing cases may be incomplete seems to me that the ~ ought to been.