This document summarizes a case involving two homeowners, Mr. Williams and Mr. Waistell, who brought a private nuisance claim against Network Rail for allowing Japanese knotweed roots to spread from Network Rail's land onto the homeowners' properties. The homeowners were awarded damages for insurance-backed treatment, surveys, loss of amenity, and diminution in property values. Network Rail appealed the ruling. The case provides insight into nuisance claims and establishes precedent for other potential knotweed-related claims if upheld on appeal.

1. William and
Waistell
v.
Network Rail
Infrastructure
Limited
Liability for Nuisance
Case Study

3. WHAT IS NUISANCE?
Nuisance means to interfere with a person's
enjoyment of his or her own land.

4. WILLIAMS & WAISTELL
V. NETWORK RAIL
INFRASTRUCTURE LTD
FACTS of the case:
- Two neighbouring bungalow owners Mr. Williams and Mr.
Waistell in South Wales brought a private nuisance claim
against Network Rail for allowing Japanese knotweed roots to
spread on their land
- Network Rail owned the land up to the bungalows’ boundaries.

5. WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED?
- Japanese knotweed is a plant with bamboo-like
qualities
- It grows very quickly and densely and can damage
structures such as paths, drains and walls
- It is a criminal offence under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 to plant Japanese knotweed or to
allow this harmful plant to grow

6. FIRST INSTANCE
The Claimants applied for an injunction to require NRI
to treat and eliminate the knotweed on their land plus
damages under various heads of loss.

7. THE CLAIM IN NUISANCE WAS
BROUGHT ON TWO ALTERNATIVE
BASES:
1. Enroachment
2. Quiet Enjoyment / Loss of Amenity

8. THE CLAIM IN NUISANCE WAS
BROUGHT ON TWO ALTERNATIVE
BASES:
1. Enroachment: Unlawful intrusion
2. Quiet Enjoyment: The right to be able to enjoy being on
his or her own land
3. Loss of Amenity: It a legal term which occurs in injury
compensation claims and relates to how your quality of life
has been affected by an injury

9. THE JUDGMENT IN 2017
The encroachment claim was dismissed on the basis that to
be an actionable nuisance there had to be actual physical
damage, and none was established
The quiet enjoyment/Loss of amenity claim succeeded on
the basis that loss of amenity could include diminution as a
result of the Claimants inability to dispose of their properties at
a proper value.
A County Court judge, Recorder Grubb, gave his judgment in 2017.
1.
2.

10. THE DAMAGES AWARDED
- £4,320 to each Claimant to cover an insurance backed treatment
package
- £300 to Mr Waistell for the costs of a knotweed survey
- £350 general damages per year (total £1,400 for loss of amenity and
interference with quiet enjoyment
- £10,500 to Mr Williams and £10,000 to Mr Waistell for residual
diminution in value once the treatment was completed

11. THE JUDGMENT IN 2017
It was not a binding decision. But it could open the
floodgates for a large number of other claims, if it is
challenged in the higher courts and upheld.

12. SO WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
NRI APPEALED!!
LINK TO THE PDF IN THE COMMENTS!

13. FIND US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
@EBEACADEMY