Stormwater Nuisance Between Neighbours: When a Blocked Easement Drainage System Requires Injunction Relief and Damages, and Why a Section 177 Support Cross-Claim Fails

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] NSWDC 529, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: District Court of New South Wales

Presiding Judge: Cole DCJ

Cause of Action: Private nuisance (stormwater overflow and overland flow); cross-claim for loss of support under s 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

Judgment Date: 17 December 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Private nuisance

Keyword 3: Stormwater overflow

Keyword 4: Drainage easement

Keyword 5: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 177

Keyword 6: Overland flow and concentrated flow

Background

This case is a modern suburban dispute with an old-fashioned trigger: water refusing to stay where it ought to stay.

A residential property (the Plaintiff’s land) sat downhill from a neighbouring residential property (the Defendants’ land). Between them sat a right of way and a drainage easement carrying stormwater infrastructure intended to convey runoff to the street. Over time, stormwater stopped behaving like an engineered system and started behaving like gravity: when heavy rain arrived, water pooled, surged, escaped the system, crossed boundaries, and repeatedly invaded the Plaintiff’s backyard and swimming pool area carrying mud, sand, and debris.

The Plaintiff said the problem was not “rain” but a recurrent state of affairs: a stormwater system serving the Defendants’ land had failed, was blocked or deformed, and was not maintained or reconfigured to perform as designed. The Plaintiff sought damages for physical damage and loss of amenity, and injunction relief requiring rectification in accordance with an approved drainage plan.

The Defendants resisted liability and advanced an alternative narrative: that the Plaintiff’s building works had altered the boundary conditions, removed a kerb, excavated too deeply, and failed to construct an adequate retaining wall, thereby causing the runoff and also removing support to the Defendants’ land. That alternative narrative became the foundation for the cross-claim under s 177.

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine five tightly connected questions:

1. Whether stormwater entering the Plaintiff’s land from the Defendants’ land and the easement constituted a private nuisance, meaning a wrongful interference with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of land caused by the Defendants’ use of their land and their responsibility for a recurrent harmful state of affairs.

2. Whether the relevant water movement was simply natural surface water flow, or a more concentrated flow caused by human alteration, defective infrastructure, or a failure to maintain drainage works.

3. Whether the Defendants had sufficient knowledge of the state of affairs and sufficient time to take reasonable steps to prevent recurrence, such that continuing the state of affairs attracted liability.

4. Whether the Plaintiff proved causation and damage, including the nature and extent of physical damage to paving and pool equipment and any compensable loss of amenity.

5. Whether the Defendants’ cross-claim for loss of support under s 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) was made out, including whether the Plaintiff’s works removed support provided by the Plaintiff’s land to the Defendants’ land, and whether any alleged kerb removal or failure to build a retaining wall could constitute loss of support and causation of damage.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The origins of this dispute are best understood as a chain with three links: subdivision design, later construction, and later deterioration.

First, subdivision design. The upstream lot (the Defendants’ land) did not front the street. Its access to the street was by a right of way along the western boundary of the street-facing lot. Along that same boundary ran a drainage easement containing a stormwater pipe and associated pits. This arrangement meant stormwater management for the upstream lot was never merely “within the fence”. It depended on an easement corridor and on infrastructure designed to carry stormwater along the right of way to the street.

Second, later construction. The Defendants acquired their land and built a dwelling and stormwater system that connected into the existing easement pipe. The house and paved areas increased runoff by reducing infiltration. That is ordinary suburban development, but it necessarily increases dependence on effective drainage capture and conveyance. A system designed for a one-in-ten-year capacity can be adequate when maintained, but becomes a liability when blocked, deformed, or misgraded.

Third, later deterioration and conflict. Years later, the downstream property (the Plaintiff’s land) was redeveloped and included a backyard pool and surrounding paving. Then, from March 2021 onward, storm events produced repeated incidents of muddy stormwater crossing the boundary and entering the Plaintiff’s backyard and pool. Each incident was not simply wetness. It was contamination, debris, cleaning, frustration, and growing physical deterioration of external paving and pool equipment.

The conflict escalated because each side saw a different “cause”. The Plaintiff saw a broken drainage system on higher land that repeatedly overflowed. The Defendants saw the Plaintiff’s redevelopment as the moment the “old balance” broke, pointing to alleged kerb removal, alleged excavation effects, and alleged failures to build boundary retaining works.

The case then became what many neighbour disputes become once lawyers and experts arrive: a contest between competing stories of causation, tested by survey data, drainage design documents, CCTV pipe inspections, and the hard discipline of cross-examination.

Detail Reconstruction

The relationship between the parties was not commercial. It was the everyday reality of neighbours who share a boundary line and the consequences of topography. The interweaving was not financial contracts, but the physical interdependence of drainage, easements, and the inescapable fact that water goes downhill.

As soon as the Plaintiff alleged repeated water incursion, the dispute was no longer about one wet day. It became about responsibility for an engineered system that served one lot but sat partly in an easement corridor adjoining another lot. The easement terms mattered because they contemplated not merely the right to have equipment there, but the right and practical responsibility to inspect, cleanse, repair, maintain, and renew.

Conflict Foreshadowing

There were decisive moments:

• The first reported major incursion, described as a heavy stream of water flowing under a boundary fence, carrying debris into the backyard and pool.

• The Defendants being informed of the issue and not resolving it, with recurrent events continuing over subsequent years.

• Expert inspections revealing defects not consistent with mere heavy rain: deformation, blockage, standing water, negative grade, and an inability of the pipe to convey flow to the street.

• The Defendants’ attempt to shift the narrative to “the Plaintiff’s works”, which required proof of kerb removal, level changes, loss of support, and causation of pipe deformation. That narrative depended on assumptions that could be tested against survey plans and physical inspection.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Plaintiff’s case relied on a practical blend of lived experience and technical reconstruction:

1. Lay evidence of recurrent events
   • Accounts of repeated stormwater incursions beginning March 2021, including descriptions of muddy water, debris, and pool contamination.
   • Evidence from a neighbouring owner observing overflow events from the easement drainage.
2. Video evidence of overflow behaviour
   • Recordings demonstrating water ponding and gushing at pits and then flowing overland toward the Plaintiff’s land.
3. Drainage and infrastructure evidence
   • Evidence describing the drainage easement, its purpose, and the stormwater pipe system with pits along the route.
   • CCTV inspection evidence indicating deformation, obstruction, subsidence, standing water, and impassable sections.
4. Design and compliance evidence
   • Reliance on an approved drainage plan for the system and the proposition that rectification should restore the system to that approved configuration.
5. Expert evidence on causation and flow pathways
   • Stormwater engineering evidence identifying that the blockage and deformation prevented the pipe from carrying flow, leading to overland escape across the boundary.
   • Structural and building evidence supporting the view that the dominant mechanism for water crossing was overland flow, not subterranean seepage.
6. Damage evidence and quantification
   • Evidence of pool contamination events, filtration performance issues, repeated soiling and staining, and subsidence and deterioration of external paving.
   • Costing evidence for rectification and equipment replacement, plus evidence supporting a claim for diminution in amenity.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Defendants’ case attempted to break the chain of responsibility and introduce an alternate chain:

1. Causation reversal: the Plaintiff’s redevelopment caused the problem
   • Allegations that the Plaintiff removed a kerb at the boundary, thereby allowing overland flow to escape.
   • Allegations of “deep excavation” near the boundary and failure to build a retaining wall required by development approval documents.
2. Pipe deformation theory
   • A theory that the Plaintiff’s pool excavation triggered subsurface movement or soil piping, leading to pipe deformation and reduced capacity.
3. Cross-claim under s 177
   • A structured claim asserting the Plaintiff owed a statutory duty of care not to remove support, breached by excavation, failing to build boundary retaining works, and causing vibration.
4. Damage scepticism
   • Contentions that observed paving issues were due to construction quality, subbase issues, or ordinary exterior wear rather than stormwater incursion.

Core Dispute Points

1. What is the dominant pathway by which water moved into the Plaintiff’s land: overland flow or subsurface seepage?
   The Court was required to choose between competing expert views and reconcile them with video evidence and physical inspection.

2. What is the dominant cause of overflow: extreme rainfall or failure of drainage infrastructure?
   The case turned on whether the drainage system was materially impaired by blockages, deformation, and grade issues.

3. Was the alleged kerb real, removed, and causally significant?
   The kerb issue was a factual battleground because it supported both the nuisance defence and the s 177 cross-claim narrative.

4. Did the Plaintiff’s excavation remove support to the Defendants’ land within s 177?
   This required proof of the zone of influence, level changes, subsidence, and a causal connection grounded in evidence rather than hypothesis.

5. What damage is proved, and what is the proper measure of damages?
   The Court had to identify what damage was caused by the incursion events and quantify rectification and amenity loss reasonably.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit evidence in neighbour disputes performs two functions at once: it tells the story and it frames the battlefield.

The Plaintiff’s affidavits were built around chronology and sensory detail: dates of heavy rain, the sight of water streaming under a fence, the contamination of a pool, the spread of mud across paved surfaces, repeated cleaning, and the frustration of recurrence. In litigation terms, this style matters because nuisance is often proved through recurrence, interference with enjoyment, and the practical consequences of the interference.

The Defendants’ affidavits were built around an explanation that attempted to relocate responsibility. Instead of “our stormwater system is blocked”, the affidavits pushed a theme of “the Plaintiff altered the boundary environment”. Those affidavits sought to create a narrative of intervention: a kerb that existed and was removed, excavation that was deep and destabilising, and missing retaining works.

The Court’s task was not to choose the more emotionally persuasive affidavit, but to test whether each affidavit’s assertions were anchored to independent evidence.

In-depth Comparison of Different Expressions of the Same Fact

Consider the same “fact” expressed differently: the alleged boundary kerb.

• The Defendants framed it as a purposeful protective structure forming part of the stormwater management system, allegedly removed during the Plaintiff’s redevelopment. The statement implies deliberate interference: a known barrier cut away, causing runoff to enter the Plaintiff’s land and destabilise the Defendants’ land.

• The Plaintiff framed the boundary condition as unchanged since purchase and denied removal. The Plaintiff’s version is supported when corroborated by a neighbouring owner and by the physical absence of marks consistent with concrete removal.

The Court ultimately treated lay beliefs and expert assumptions about kerb removal as speculation if not supported by direct evidence, physical traces, or reliable corroboration.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

In a case crowded with experts, a judge’s procedural management of affidavits often aims to force clarity:

• Affidavits must identify specific incidents, not general complaints. That supports findings of recurrence.

• Affidavits must specify what was observed, not what was inferred. That separates a witness’s perception from an expert conclusion.

• When cross-claims are pleaded late or amended, affidavits become crucial for procedural fairness: the opposing party must know the factual case it must meet.

This judgment shows a typical judicial preference: where a party’s affidavit asserts key facts (kerb removal, deep excavation effects), the Court expects objective support such as photographs, consistent physical evidence, or survey data.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final relief, the Court’s management of this matter required procedural arrangements typical for technical property disputes:

• Directions for the exchange of expert reports across disciplines including stormwater engineering, structural engineering, geotechnical opinion, and building assessment.

• Arrangements for concurrent evidence sessions, enabling experts to address points of agreement and disagreement in a structured way.

• The management of a cross-claim that was amended, requiring the pleadings to crystallise allegations about support and causation.

• The sequencing of evidence, including lay evidence of recurrence and expert evidence addressing causation mechanisms.

These steps functioned as the Court’s method of converting a neighbour dispute into a legally decidable matrix: identify the system, identify the failure, identify responsibility, identify damage, and test alternative causation theories.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing was a disciplined contest between two explanatory models:

• Model A: A stormwater disposal system serving higher land is blocked or deformed, so during heavy rain it fills, backflows, overflows at pits, and escapes overland across a boundary, repeatedly causing contamination and damage downstream.

• Model B: The downstream owner’s redevelopment altered the boundary environment and destabilised conditions, causing both the runoff problem and alleged support loss, including pipe deformation by soil piping.

The Court’s approach was to triangulate: lay accounts of what happened, objective inspection evidence, and expert reconciliation through concurrent evidence.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

A critical cross-examination theme was the difference between observation and inference.

Where a witness said “the kerb was missing after the fence was installed”, cross-examination pressed for specificity: what was the kerb’s height, construction, and location, and how did the witness know it was removed rather than never existing as described or being something else like bricks.

Where an expert advanced a soil piping theory, cross-examination pressed for the factual basis: what was known about the excavation duration, the soil conditions during construction, the existence of level changes, and whether survey data contradicted the assumptions driving the theory.

The hearing revealed that some earlier expert beliefs shifted when confronted with site inspection and joint conclave observations. That shift mattered because it narrowed the field: the dominant mechanism became overland flow rather than subterranean seepage.

Core Evidence Confrontation

Three pieces of evidence formed the decisive confrontation:

1. CCTV and inspection evidence of pipe defects
   The pipe exhibited deformation, blockages, standing water, and grade problems, supporting the conclusion that it could not carry flow as designed.

2. Survey evidence about levels and the zone of influence
   Comparison of survey plans undermined assertions that the Plaintiff’s redevelopment significantly altered relative levels. This weakened both the Defendants’ “changed levels” story and the soil piping theory dependent on that story.

3. Video evidence of overflow behaviour at pits
   The observed behaviour of water gushing up and pooling at drainage points supported a practical conclusion: capacity was impaired and overflow escaped as overland flow.

Judicial Reasoning

At the heart of nuisance liability in a case like this is not moral blame but responsibility for a continuing harmful state of affairs. The Court applied orthodox nuisance principles: an occupier can be liable for continuing a nuisance where there is knowledge of the state of affairs and a failure to take reasonable steps within ample time to bring it to an end. The case also required careful navigation between mere natural flow and concentrated flow arising from human alteration and defective systems.

A nuisance is either a continuous or recurrent state of affairs. An occupier of land will be liable for continuing a nuisance if, with knowledge or presumed knowledge of the state of affairs, the occupier fails to take reasonable steps to bring it to an end despite having had ample time to do so. There will be nuisance if a state of affairs created, adopted or continued by an owner or occupier of land harms another person’s enjoyment of land occupied or owned by that other person, unless the first person’s conduct involves no more than the reasonable and convenient use of its own land.

This statement was determinative because it framed the dispute in the correct legal lens. The Plaintiff did not need to prove the Defendants maliciously intended harm. The Plaintiff needed to prove a recurrent harmful state of affairs and that the Defendants, with knowledge, failed to take reasonable steps. The Court treated the blocked and deformed drainage system as a continuing condition connected to the Defendants’ use of their land for residential purposes and their responsibility under the easement arrangement to maintain the drainage infrastructure serving their property.

The Court also applied the law of surface water between higher and lower proprietors, including the distinction between natural unconcentrated flow and concentrated flow created by human works and land alteration.

The higher proprietor is not liable merely because surface water flows naturally from his land on to lower land. He may be liable if such water is caused to flow in a more concentrated form than it naturally would. It flows in a more concentrated form than it naturally would if, by the discernible work of man, the levels or conformations of land have been altered, and as a result the flow of surface water is increased at any particular point.

This passage was determinative because it supplied the bridge between the physics of runoff and legal responsibility. The case was not “rain happened”. It was “an engineered system failed, and the failure caused concentrated overflow at specific points leading to repeated intrusions”. The Court’s findings on pipe deformation and blocked capacity supported a conclusion that water was escaping in a concentrated manner, repeatedly, as a consequence of an impaired stormwater system associated with the Defendants’ land and the easement appurtenant to it.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders in favour of the Plaintiff and dismissed the Defendants’ cross-claim.

Orders

1. Judgment and verdict for the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. The Defendants were ordered forthwith to remedy the nuisance caused by stormwater escaping from the Defendants’ land and the drainage easement by repairing and reconfiguring the stormwater drainage system on the Defendants’ land and the easement so that it is in accordance with the drainage plan approved and stamped by the relevant council in relation to the identified development application.

3. The Defendants were ordered to pay the Plaintiff damages in the sum of AUD $99,382.01.

4. Judgment for the Plaintiff on the Defendants’ cross-claim, and the cross-claim was dismissed.

The Court also indicated it would hear the parties as to costs.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

This judgment is valuable because it shows how a Court converts a messy neighbour dispute into a structured proof exercise. The winning pathway can be expressed as:

Conclusion = Evidence Chain + Legal Test + Responsibility Findings + Causation + Quantification

The Court’s reasoning reveals at least eight “victory points” that together explain why the Plaintiff succeeded and why the cross-claim failed.

Special Analysis

This case is jurisprudentially useful in three ways.

First, it demonstrates how nuisance law accommodates modern suburban drainage disputes without collapsing into negligence formalities. The Court treated nuisance as a mechanism for addressing continuing interference with land enjoyment arising from infrastructure failure, without requiring proof of negligence in the strict sense.

Second, it clarifies the boundary between nuisance and statutory support claims under s 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The Court rejected an attempt to recharacterise a stormwater nuisance claim as a support issue. Section 177 abolishes nuisance actions only in respect of removal of support; it does not abolish nuisance more generally. This distinction matters because neighbour disputes often generate “everything claims everything”: water, soil, support, vibration, boundary works. The judgment shows the Court will keep doctrines in their proper lanes.

Third, it highlights an evidentiary lesson: courts are wary of causation theories built on assumptions about construction processes when objective survey and inspection evidence points elsewhere. Where an expert theory depends on unknown construction details, it is structurally fragile.

Judgment Points

Point 1: Recurrent state of affairs is the gateway to nuisance

The Plaintiff’s case succeeded because the Court accepted the intrusion events occurred and were recurrent. Nuisance is not a one-off splash. It is typically a continuing condition or repeated events that substantially interfere with enjoyment.

The Court relied on consistent lay evidence from multiple witnesses and treated the events as recurring within the nuisance framework. That finding did two things: it made the interference legally significant and it supported the conclusion that the Defendants had ample time to act.

Point 2: Knowledge transforms a problem into responsibility

A decisive step was the Court’s acceptance that the Defendants were informed of the problem in 2021 and thus knew that similar rain events would cause similar incursions. Once knowledge is established, the legal evaluation shifts from “unforeseeable act of nature” to “foreseeable recurring condition”. The Court treated the Defendants’ continuing use of the property for residential purposes, combined with knowledge of a defective drainage system, as supporting personal responsibility for continuing the nuisance.

Point 3: The evidence chain showed the drainage system was impaired

The Court accepted expert evidence that the stormwater system was almost completely blocked due to deformation and blockages, with only a trickle reaching street infrastructure. This finding aligned with the observed ponding and gushing behaviour at pits.

The legal significance is direct: if a system designed to capture and convey runoff cannot do so, overflow becomes predictable. Predictability supports nuisance findings when the occupier does not take reasonable steps to end the condition.

Point 4: The case was won on the pathway: overland flow

Competing explanations existed about whether water was travelling beneath slabs or across the surface. The Court accepted that the great majority of flow was overland. This mattered because overland flow is visible, trackable, and directly connected to boundary openings and overflow points. It also makes speculative subsurface narratives less persuasive where video evidence shows surface escape from drainage pits.

Point 5: Kerb narratives failed without physical proof

The Defendants’ narrative relied heavily on kerb removal. The Court rejected findings of removal on the balance of probabilities, pointing to inconsistencies between descriptions and the physical state of the slab and boundary. The Court also treated beliefs about removal as speculation without an evidentiary basis.

This is a classic trial lesson: a party can lose not because a theory is impossible, but because it cannot be proved with the level of reliability required. Physical traces, photographs, and consistent geometry matter. Speculation does not.

Point 6: Objective surveys beat imaginative reconstruction

The Defendants’ support-loss narrative and pipe deformation theory depended on assertions about changed levels and excavation effects. The Court preferred survey plan comparisons and accepted evidence that there was no significant change in levels between the properties attributable to the Plaintiff’s redevelopment. That preference undercut the foundation for the soil piping hypothesis advanced in support of the cross-claim and the nuisance defence.

Point 7: Damage was tied to specific mechanisms, not general deterioration

The Court identified the proven damage: repeated pool contamination, filtration system damage, repeated soiling of pool tiles or paving, and subsidence of external tiles. Importantly, the Court declined to accept claims not pursued or not supported, such as a causal link between water ingress and cracking of the pool shell.

This selective approach enhances credibility. Courts are more willing to accept a plaintiff’s case when it is disciplined, evidence-led, and does not overreach.

Point 8: Quantum is a reasoned exercise, not a rubber stamp

The Court scrutinised costing evidence. It adjusted an overestimated paving replacement figure and made allowances reflecting time, price changes, and reasonable preliminaries. It added specific allowances for pool pump and filter replacement, cleaning and sanitation costs, and a discrete figure for diminution of amenity.

The victory point is strategic: when a plaintiff proves liability, careless quantum work can still reduce recovery. Here, the Court’s approach shows how to present a credible schedule while expecting judicial adjustments.

Legal Basis

The judgment turned on two key bodies of law:

1. Private nuisance principles and surface water rules
   The Court applied nuisance as wrongful interference with enjoyment of land, particularly in a recurrent state of affairs context, and considered surface water flow between higher and lower landowners. The Court treated the nuisance as linked to the Defendants’ failure to repair, maintain, and renew stormwater infrastructure serving their land.

2. Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
   The Court applied s 177 to the cross-claim as the statutory framework for a duty of care in relation to support for land. Crucially, the Court confined the scope of s 177 to support issues and rejected the idea that it abolished the Plaintiff’s nuisance claim, because the Plaintiff’s claim was not an action in nuisance “in respect of the removal of support”.

Evidence Chain

The successful evidence chain can be set out in a “five-link” proof structure:

1. Statutory and doctrinal frame
   Nuisance requires wrongful interference with enjoyment, typically recurrent, and responsibility grounded in knowledge and failure to take reasonable steps.

2. Objective infrastructure condition
   CCTV and inspection evidence showed deformation, blockages, standing water, and negative grade issues in the stormwater pipe system.

3. Observed overflow behaviour
   Video and witness evidence showed ponding and gushing around pits and overflow leading to overland flow across the boundary.

4. Causation to specific damage
   Muddy stormwater repeatedly entered the pool and paved surrounds, causing filtration problems, soiling, and subsidence of external paving.

5. Failure to rebut with credible alternative causation
   The Defendants’ theories about kerb removal and excavation-driven soil piping failed on proof, because assumptions were contradicted by physical inspection and survey comparisons.

Judicial Original Quotation

The dominant cause of the damage is the deformation and blockage of the stormwater pipe in the easement appurtenant to the Defendants’ land. The precise cause of the deformation of the pipe is unknown. The blockage is partly caused by the presence of objects and material in the pipe and is partly unknown.

This passage was determinative because it shows the Court did not require a full forensic explanation of how the pipe became deformed. For nuisance, the Court focused on the condition’s existence, its recurrent harmful consequences, and the Defendants’ responsibility to address it once known. The absence of a precise origin story for deformation did not break causation, because the evidence established that the impaired pipe caused overflow events and that the Defendants, as those benefiting from the easement drainage, bore responsibility for maintenance and renewal.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Defendants’ failure was not one single mistake. It was a sequence of evidentiary and doctrinal missteps:

1. Doctrinal overreach on s 177
   The Defendants attempted to collapse a stormwater nuisance claim into a support dispute. The Court held the Plaintiff’s claim was not about removal of support and therefore was not displaced by s 177(8).

2. Over-reliance on kerb removal without proof
   The kerb narrative was pivotal but unsupported by direct evidence and inconsistent with the physical state of the boundary slab and fence placement. Once the kerb narrative fell, much of the cross-claim scaffolding weakened.

3. Causation theories built on assumptions
   Soil piping and excavation influence theories depended on uncertain construction processes and alleged level changes. Survey evidence undercut the alleged level changes, and the Court preferred expert evidence grounded in objective data rather than speculative reconstruction.

4. Failure to establish statutory elements for loss of support
   A s 177 claim requires proof that the supporting land’s support was removed and that damage followed. The Court found the Defendants did not establish removal of support or a causal connection between the Plaintiff’s works and any damage to the Defendants’ land.

5. Mismatch between alleged wrong and alleged harm
   Even if a kerb had been removed, the Court treated it as an overland water management feature rather than a structure providing support to land. That mismatch mattered because s 177 is about land support, not surface flow diversion.

Implications

1. Neighbour disputes become legally solvable when they stop being arguments about blame and start being arguments about proof. The side that builds a clean evidence chain usually wins.

2. Water does not respect boundaries, but the law does. If runoff becomes concentrated by defective or unmaintained infrastructure, responsibility can follow even without deliberate conduct.

3. Knowledge is a turning point. Once a landowner is notified that a recurrent condition is harming a neighbour, inaction tends to become legally expensive.

4. Expert evidence is powerful only when it stands on facts. Theories that depend on unknown construction processes or assumptions about levels tend to collapse under survey data and inspection evidence.

5. Litigation is not only about winning liability. It is about presenting credible quantum. Courts will adjust inflated costs, but disciplined, transparent evidence preserves recovery.

Q&A Session

Question 1: Why is this a nuisance case and not just a complaint about heavy rain?

Because the Court treated the problem as a recurrent state of affairs connected to a defective drainage system. Heavy rain is an event. A blocked or deformed pipe that repeatedly overflows is a continuing condition. The law of nuisance addresses continuing interference with enjoyment of land when a landowner with knowledge fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

Question 2: Does the Plaintiff have to prove exactly how the pipe became deformed to win?

Not necessarily. The Court accepted that the precise cause of deformation was unknown but found that the pipe was blocked and deformed and that this condition caused overflow and damage. Once the condition and causal pathway are proved, nuisance liability can still be established based on responsibility for continuing the harmful state of affairs.

Question 3: Why did the cross-claim under s 177 fail even though the Defendants alleged excavation and missing retaining walls?

Because the Defendants did not prove removal of support or causation of damage within the meaning of s 177. Survey evidence undermined alleged level changes, expert opinions relied on unproven assumptions, and the Court preferred evidence indicating the Defendants’ issues were more consistent with stormwater build-up and overflow rather than loss of support caused by the Plaintiff’s works.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Neighbour Property Dispute – Stormwater Overflow and Drainage Easement Nuisance

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Standard

The following elements are a rigorous reference framework only. Outcomes tend to depend on evidence quality, local council documentation, site conditions, and the extent of recurrence and knowledge. No single factor is determinative in every matter.

Core Test Standards for Property, Construction and Planning Law

Statutory Warranties

Was the work performed in a proper and workmanlike manner?

In disputes involving construction or rectification works, courts often examine whether drainage works and related construction were executed to an appropriate standard. The inquiry tends to focus on whether the system performs the function it is designed to perform, whether it is installed to the approved plan where applicable, and whether defects such as blockage, deformation, or misgrading indicate failures in workmanship or later maintenance.

Key factual checks commonly include: drainage plan approvals, pipe sizes and grades, pit locations, evidence of subsidence, CCTV inspection results, and maintenance history.

Were the materials supplied good and suitable for the purpose?

Stormwater infrastructure must be fit for its intended conveyance capacity. Pipe deformation, crushing, or poor-grade outcomes may indicate materials unsuited to loads, installation depths, or later site conditions. However, responsibility tends to turn on proof of who controlled installation, who benefited from the system, and who had practical responsibility to maintain or renew.

Core Test for Defects

Is it a Major Defect or a Minor Defect?

Although “major defect” concepts are prominent in some statutory warranty schemes, neighbour nuisance disputes often require practical classification: whether defects are severe enough to cause recurrent overflow, property damage, or loss of amenity.

A defect tends to be treated as more serious where it renders the system incapable of performing its drainage function, repeatedly causes overflow, or creates conditions that lead to repeated contamination or structural issues.

Does the defect render the building uninhabitable or cause destruction?

In many stormwater disputes, the practical harm may not be “uninhabitable” but can still be legally significant where it causes ongoing property damage, contamination, and loss of enjoyment. Nuisance focuses on interference and damage rather than the threshold of habitability.

Core Test for Planning Compliance

Have the conditions of the Development Application or compliance certification been breached?

Where drainage infrastructure is tied to approved plans, the compliance question becomes evidentiary: what was approved, what exists on site, and what divergence exists.

In practice, the most effective approach tends to include: obtaining stamped plans, tracing system alignment and pit levels, comparing existing conditions to design intent, and identifying whether non-compliance contributes to overflow.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In neighbour disputes where statutory avenues are contested or incomplete, equity and common law doctrines may offer alternate pathways. Outcomes tend to depend on whether the evidence establishes clear representations, reliance, unconscionability, or procedural unfairness.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation?

In stormwater and boundary disputes, representations may arise during negotiations, correspondence, or settlement discussions, such as assurances that drainage works will be repaired or that runoff will be controlled.

A representation tends to be considered clearer where it is: repeated, specific about what works will be done, and made by someone with authority.

Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise?

Reliance may include: delaying litigation, refraining from seeking urgent injunctive relief, paying for interim cleaning or rectification, or undertaking works on one’s own land in expectation the neighbour will complete their part.

Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile?

Unconscionability tends to be evaluated against the fairness of allowing a party to withdraw after inducing reliance. In neighbour disputes, courts often scrutinise whether the relying party’s actions were reasonable and whether the promisor knew reliance was likely.

Unjust Enrichment or Constructive Trust

These doctrines are usually less central in stormwater nuisance disputes, but may arise where one owner incurs substantial costs improving an easement corridor or shared drainage benefit, and the other owner retains the benefit without contribution. Relief tends to be fact-specific and may be relatively difficult where the work is not directly tied to a shared proprietary interest.

Procedural Fairness

Where council or authority decisions intersect with drainage plans, procedural fairness issues can arise in administrative pathways. If a party seeks review of an authority decision relating to drainage approval or enforcement, the core inquiry tends to include whether there was a fair opportunity to be heard and whether the decision-maker acted without bias.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

Neighbour stormwater disputes often turn on practical thresholds rather than formal “hard numbers”, but the following are common:

• Recurrence threshold: isolated overflow tends to be treated differently from repeated events occurring multiple times per year.
• Knowledge threshold: once notified, a landowner’s continuing inaction tends to attract a higher risk of liability.
• Proof threshold: objective evidence such as CCTV inspections, surveys, and videos tends to carry significant weight.

Exceptional Channels

• If a party cannot identify the precise origin of pipe deformation, liability may still be determined if the evidence establishes the condition exists, causes recurrent overflow, and the responsible party fails to take reasonable steps after knowledge.
• Where runoff includes upstream catchment contributions, responsibility may still attach if the drainage system serving the dominant land is designed to capture such flows and is not maintained, and the overflow predictably escapes onto the neighbour’s land.

Suggestion

A party should not abandon a claim merely because the system’s failure mechanism is complex. The more reliable pathway tends to be: prove recurrence, prove the defective condition, prove knowledge, prove causation of specific damage, and seek relief tailored to rectification and compensation.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is useful in submissions involving:

• Private nuisance caused by stormwater overflow from higher land to lower land, particularly where defective drainage infrastructure in an easement corridor is central.
• The evidentiary standard required to prove alleged boundary kerb removal or construction-caused pipe deformation.
• The distinction between nuisance claims and s 177 support claims, including the limited abolition of nuisance in relation to removal of support.

Citation Method

As Positive Support

Where a matter involves repeated stormwater incursions caused by blockage or deformation of drainage infrastructure serving the upstream land, this authority tends to support the proposition that continuing a recurrent harmful condition with knowledge and without reasonable remedial steps can constitute nuisance and justify injunction relief and damages.

As a Distinguishing Reference

If an opposing party relies on this authority, distinguishing features may include: absence of recurrence, absence of knowledge, credible proof that the overflow arises from purely natural unconcentrated flow, or evidence that the drainage system is maintained and compliant and overflow arises only from extraordinary events beyond design capacity.

Anonymisation Rule

In any public discussion or template drafting, parties should be described using procedural titles such as Plaintiff and Defendants, and cross-claim roles as Cross-Claimants and Cross-Defendant, rather than real names.

Conclusion

This judgment shows a practical truth: property disputes are rarely won by the loudest grievance and are often won by the cleanest evidence chain. When water repeatedly crosses a boundary because an upstream drainage system is blocked, deformed, and left unrepaired after notice, the law has tools that are both corrective and compensatory: injunction relief to stop the harm and damages to repair what was lost.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the District Court of New South Wales ([2025] NSWDC 529), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.