The Court held that while the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's slope had already caused damage to the retaining wall (rejecting the plaintiff's geotechnical expert's back-analysis as infused with unproved assumptions), the defendant's grossly inadequate stormwater drainage system — directing runoff from 76% of its hard-surfaced land down a steep slope — created a not insignificant risk of future slope failure and damage to the plaintiff's wall, constituting a prospective nuisance. The Court found that the defendant's use of its land for an apartment block was common and ordinary but was not carried out in a way that reasonably minimised interference with the plaintiff's rights, given the drainage system's non-compliance with applicable standards and its 'reckless' state of disrepair. Quia timet mandatory injunctive relief was granted requiring installation of a new stormwater drainage system, but the Court declined to order slope stabilisation works (soil nails) or to award damages for the cost of repairing the wall, which was located entirely on the plaintiff's land.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.