0
The Court of Appeal held that although the existence of a tumbledown property on neighbouring land might not in itself be tortious, a claimant would or might have a complaint in nuisance if the house bordered its own property and its state of dilapidation was such that it presented a real danger of collapsing onto his property. However, it was not sufficient for a claimant to assert that its neighbour’s property or activities were dangerous merely on the basis of an honest and reasonable fear. Proof was required that the fear was well founded in that, on the balance of probabilities, the property or activities were actually dangerous. The essence of the case was that actual danger had to be proved.
