Seecharan v Ramlogan

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Hassanali, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 June 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 HC 4
• Docket Number: No. 2269 of 1965
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 23 June 1966

High Court

Hassanali, J.

No. 2269 of 1965

Seecharan

and

Ramlogan

No Appearances:

Nuisance - Tree overhanging in yard — Dampness created — Adverse effect on pottery business.

Damage - Nuisance — Offensive odour and smoke

Facts: Plaintiff made claim against Defendant for trespass or nuisance. Alleged that branches of trees growing upon the defendant's land overhung the plaintiff's lands and thus caused damage to the plaintiff in his pottery business. Trees caused dampness and as a consequence the plaintiff's pottery would crumble on being baked.

Facts: Plaintiff made claim against defendant for trespass or nuisance. Alleged that branches of trees growing upon the defendant's land overhung the plaintiff's lands and thus caused damage to the plaintiff in his pottery business. Defendant counter-claimed that offensive odour and smoke issuing from the plaintiff's land onto the defendant's caused damage to the defendant.

Held: Defendant liable to the plaintiff in nuisance. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant.

Held: Counter-claim is without merit. Therefore fails.

Hassanali, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for trespass or nuisance, alleging that branches of trees growing upon the defendant's land overhung the plaintiff's lands and thus caused damage to the plaintiff in his business. Apart from denying the plaintiff's claim the defendant counterclaims that offensive odour and smoke issuing from the plaintiff's lands onto the defendant's caused damage to the defendant.

2 It is a nuisance if portions of one's trees overlap a neighbour's boundary and thereby do damage. Smith v. Giddy [1904] 2 K.B. 4 & 8.

3 On the plaintiff's claim the main issues are:

• i) whether branches of trees growing on the defendant's lands overhung the plaintiff's lands; and

• ii) if so, whether as a result the plaintiff suffered damage.

4 The facts as I find them are as follows:–

5 The plaintiff and the defendant reside on and occupy lands adjacent to each other on the north side of Orangefield Road — the plaintiff's lands to the East and the defendant's to the west of the plaintiff's. The plaintiff has been occupying these lands for the past 20 years; where for this period he has been carrying on a pottery business, making several kinds of clay products. He has been a pottery manufacturer for the past 30 years.

6 The plaintiff has 2 pottery ovens — one operated by an oil furnace and the other by wood fire, both situate some 3 – 4 feet distant from the plaintiff's western boundary. They are covered with galvanized iron.

7 Some time in the year 1962, — probably early 1962 — the defendant planted English immortelle trees along his east, west and south boundaries. It seems they are fast growing trees. By May 1963 they had grown very tall — those on the defendant's east boundary ranging between 15 and 30 feet in height the trunks being about 3 – 4 inches in diameter. The branches of some of these trees overhung the plaintiff's oven sheds and other parts of the plaintiff's lands on their western boundary. The result of this overhang was dampness to the affected areas on plaintiff's premises. This dampness adversely affected the plaintiff's business. Clay items must be dried before being baked this dampness retarded the drying process of the clay products. So that when the items were put into oven for baking they would not have been dried properly they would as a consequence crumble on being baked and would be a total loss.

8 The plaintiff complained to the defendant about the overhanging branches, explained to him the adverse effect on his business and asked him to cut the branches. The defendant refused to cut them.

9 The plaintiff thus suffered loss over a period of time.

10 The plaintiff suffered loss in this way during the period May to October, 1963 in that many items of pottery crumbled in the oven — the total loss for the period amounting to $594.00.

11 I am impressed by the plaintiff's manner and demeanour. I accept him as a truthful witness. He receives considerable support from his witness James Harper, an agriculturist and Valuer of some 35 years' experience and who was obviously a disinterested witness. The defendant has admitted that he has known Mr. Harper as a Valuer for over 30 years and has never had any trouble with him. Mr. Harper supports the plaintiff in the allegation that in May 1963 several immortelle trees were overhanging the plaintiff's lands, including the oven buildings; that the result would have been considerable dampness on plaintiff's lands; and that in October 1963 there were many crumbled pottery items on the plaintiff's premises. He expressed the view that they might have crumbled in the oven on being roasted because of the adverse effect of the dampness on them.

12 The defendant himself admitted that he has many immortelle trees an the boundaries of his lands....