Problem with next doors tree, advice required, thanks

[AHPP]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

I don't see what Sturges has to do with it, it related to moving to a nuisance and whether the source of nuisance could say that the neighbour had thereby forgone the right to prevent the nuisance. Which of course he hasn't. That in itself is consistent (but for slightly different reasons) with Lemmon v Webb which said the nuisance never gains prescriptive right to be continued.

And is Sturges not an english case anyway? There are still some significant differences between scots and english law on liability, which without doubt originate from differences between roman and medieval law.

Are you really interested in whether scots law and the right to abate nuisance is founded in rustic or urban roman law? That's quite a subtle distinction to be making. As it happens, the court of session over-rode the roman law on the basis that in italy the shade from trees is probably a good thing but in scotland it's not. In making the distinction it relied on a french institutional writer. We're gettign in pretty deep here, and wheras I love all this stuff I am curoius why you want to know, or if this is in fact what you wnat to know.

I’m obliquely interested in the law and more interested in how you would discern what the law is. Go as deep as you like. 

[daltontrees]

8 hours ago, DaveKil said:

This is all waffle mate. If you really understood the relevant Law you could have answered this guy's questions in one or two sentences. You might impress laymen who haven't read Law, but to someone who has you come across as an unhelpful showman. 

Clearly you haven't followed the thread. If you had you would have seen that I answered the OP's question a few posts in, and succinctly. The OP has subsequently disappeared, and everything since then has been harmlessly indulging the admirable quriosity of a fellow Arbtalker, on a subject that I happen to know quite well. It's not waffle, it's correct and mostly neeeded to explain why the answer to AHPP's question is not simple. If you know the law you will realise that. Instead you come along (your second post ever on Arbtalk!) to anonymously insult strangers, without making a single useful contribution. I don't give a f*&% how I come across to you, but if you think you can answer AHPP's question "What's the earliest caselaw that accepts it as the law?" in one or two sentences go right ahead. Make a useful contribution. Waffle as much as you like, but it'd better be right. Welcome to Arbtalk.

[AHPP]

Sturges v Bridgman is English but is about local characteristics, similar to the Roman urban/rustic divide you describe. It’s just the case that came to mind and struck me as comparable to any zoning that alters thresholds or standards in lex/wrongs/tort. If I was writing about it, I’d see how many different jurisdictions have something similar.  

Edited September 12, 2022 by AHPP

[Mrdave]

many thanks for everyone who has replied on this thread. I have had a tree surgeon look at the tree and am awaiting a quote to get roots removed and i have now contacted the council again and am awaiting their reply. 

 

On 09/09/2022 at 21:29, AHPP said:

Do you mean time immemorial, i.e. 1189? What's the earliest caselaw that accepts it as the law?

 

[daltontrees]

On 12/09/2022 at 09:43, AHPP said:

Sturges v Bridgman is English but is about local characteristics, similar to the Roman urban/rustic divide you describe. It’s just the case that came to mind and struck me as comparable to any zoning that alters thresholds or standards in lex/wrongs/tort. If I was writing about it, I’d see how many different jurisdictions have something similar.  

Fair enough, but if the distinction between rustic and urban is unique to roman law and given that english law is not derived from roman law, it would be a matter of independent evolution. Which is an interesting prospect. You are right about Sturges, it very much is about the character of teh area as to what constitutes nuisance. A  field of manure is one thing in the country and another in suburbia!

[john87]

On 20/09/2022 at 16:43, daltontrees said:

Fair enough, but if the distinction between rustic and urban is unique to roman law and given that english law is not derived from roman law, it would be a matter of independent evolution. Which is an interesting prospect. You are right about Sturges, it very much is about the character of teh area as to what constitutes nuisance. A  field of manure is one thing in the country and another in suburbia!

On this subject a judge once said; " What would be a nuisance in belgrave square would not necessarily be so in bermondsey!!!

 

ha ha ha

 

john..

[daltontrees]

13 hours ago, john87 said:

On this subject a judge once said; " What would be a nuisance in belgrave square would not necessarily be so in bermondsey!!!

 

ha ha ha

 

john..

That was in Sturges v Bridgman