Ramsey J expressly stated that it was important that the standard imposed on landowners not be that of the reasonable arborist, but that it is difficult to see how a landowner can carry out his duty without that expertise. Because the cypress hedge is so close to the property, Ms. Kane should have assessed the risk of damage. What if they`re a little further away? Or a little less imposing? What if the oak tree is a little closer? How to judge if vegetation is at risk? To avoid the risk of liability, the only safe way for the landowner to call in a specialist can be. However, it is not uncommon for there to be a specific exclusion for damages to the reduction in accordance with this risk clause, which means that the claim would be taken into account under the reduction risk clause, which generally implies a higher surplus. Khan v Kane is factual and the liability in this case was established on the basis of Mr. Justice Ramsey, who concluded that it was reasonable for a prudent owner to foresee that the roots of a 10-metre-high cypress hedge, half a metre from the khan`s property, represented a real risk of damage because of the “general risk” location.” , the size and condition of these trees,” including that they “dominate this side of the property.” However, he also concluded that it was not reasonable to expect an oak, a particularly thirsty species, about 25 to 30 metres above sea level, but 10 metres above sea level, to pose such a risk. Oak has “no specificity” that “rises to a landowner who has a reasonable purpose.” If a case involves a third party, for example. B a neighbour next door who refuses to reduce or remove his trees, you can take legal action.
But we expect you to: `If the neighbour was an arboreal surgeon or had a profession that gave him knowledge of the material damage caused by the trees; In July 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Khan purchased a house in Stanmore, Middlesex. Mrs. Kane lived next door. In the garden of Mrs. Kane`s property, there was an oak tree 10 metres from the Khans` house and a 10-metre-high cypress hedge at the border, which was only half a metre away. The result of Khan v Kane is that landowners should be aware that they may be responsible for the damage caused by their trees, even if they do not themselves believe there is a risk, and they should seek the advice of a specialist to determine all the risks. If you have noticed a subsidence that you think is caused by a tree on nearby land, or if you are attached to an apartment on the ground floor if you own upper floors, or if your neighbour claims that it has been lowered by a tree on your property, you should seek the help of a lawyer as soon as possible. Apart from that, if you remove a large tree, you do not get the opposite effect, that is, heave To deal with these situations, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has published its national grant agreement. If you subscribe to this agreement, you must manage changes in insurance rights: without legal action, you cannot force a third party to reduce or remove its trees.
However, if you were not prepared to fund a lawsuit, we would expect you to have found another way to stop the movement so that you could repair the damage from the subsidence. The failure of a fall – the support for masonry above the opening of a window or door – is characterized by diagonal cracks above windows and doors. Cracks can sometimes be confused with sagging because they are similar. It can usually be diagnosed from the pattern and position of the cracks and is usually caused by: At a minimum, we ask for soil analysis to confirm shrinkable clay, root analysis and engineers` reports that show that the rules have to fall naturally. Khan and Khan`s verdict against London Borough of Harrow and Kane  EWHC 2687 (TCC) examines when a landowner is responsible for the declines caused by trees on their land and to what extent the risk of this fall must be foreseeable.