- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ambrose v Shevlin
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff and the Defendant own neighbouring farmland in The County. On 25–26 February 1994 two heavy-rain events flooded the Plaintiff’s house. The Plaintiff traced the flooding to a farm pass constructed by the Defendant the previous year without planning permission. A three-inch pipe under the pass became blocked, allegedly turning the pass into a dam.
After the first flood on Friday night, a county engineer breached the pass with a mechanical digger, and water subsided. By Saturday evening the breach had been refilled, the pipe remained inadequate, and a second flood occurred.
The Plaintiff sued in nuisance. In the High Court, Judge Dunne found that the pass caused both floods, but held that the harmful consequences of the Friday flood were not foreseeable, whereas refilling the breach on Saturday made the second flood foreseeable. The Defendant was therefore held liable only for the Saturday flood. Damages of €44,757 had been agreed in advance and were awarded without apportionment.
The Defendant appealed, first seeking leave to amend the notice of appeal to add new legal grounds, and secondly contending that damages should be reduced or the case retried because no evidence distinguished damage caused by the Saturday flood from the Friday flood.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should permit the Defendant to amend the notice of appeal to raise legal arguments not pleaded or argued at trial.
- If no amendment were allowed, whether the agreed damages could stand in light of the trial judge’s finding that the Defendant was liable only for the Saturday flood, given the absence of evidence segregating damages between the two flooding events.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant/Appellant's Arguments
- Sought to add grounds based on a flood-defence entitlement derived from Gerrard v. Crowe, asserting a landowner may protect his land even if it foreseeably worsens neighbours’ flooding.
- Argued that, even if no absolute flood-defence right existed, the farm pass was a reasonable use of land, relying on Irish and English nuisance precedents.
- Maintained that, because he was liable only for the Saturday flood, damages must be apportioned; absent evidence of Saturday-specific losses, the claim should be dismissed or remitted for retrial.
Plaintiff/Respondent's Arguments
- Opposed any amendment as extremely late (almost five years after the original notice of appeal) and concerning issues never raised at trial.
- Contended that allowing new grounds would prejudice the Plaintiff, who had no chance to adduce evidence on those issues.
- Asserted that the advance agreement on damages, untouched by any caveat, meant the High Court properly awarded the full sum once liability for nuisance was established.
- Argued that any attempt to segregate damages now would require an impractical retrial of events more than two decades old.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gerrard v. Crowe [1921] AC 395 | Possible right of a landowner to protect land from flooding even if it increases flooding elsewhere. | Raised only by the Defendant; Court refused to consider because the point was not pleaded or argued below. |
| Fitzpatrick v. O'Connor (High Court, 11 Mar 1988) | Reasonable use of land as a defence in nuisance. | Part of Defendant’s proposed new ground; Court declined to entertain for procedural reasons. |
| Home Brewery v. Davis & Company [1987] QB 339 | Same principle on reasonable use in English law. | Same as above. |
| Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-operative Society v. Bradley [2013] I.R. 227 | Framework for determining when new issues may be raised on appeal; describes a spectrum from permissible refinements to impermissible new cases. | Provided the analytical test; Court placed this appeal at the impermissible end of the spectrum and refused the amendment. |
| K.D. (otherwise C.) v. M.C. [1985] I.R. 697 | Example where new issues on appeal would require new evidence, illustrating the impermissible end of the Lough Swilly spectrum. | Cited illustratively in the Court’s reasoning. |
| Movie News Ltd. v. Galway County Council (Supreme Court, 25 Jul 1977) | Authority on abandonment of arguments at trial barring their revival on appeal. | Used to support refusal to allow new grounds. |
| Performance Cars Ltd. v. Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33 | Where earlier damage already necessitated repair, a later tortfeasor is not liable for that same head of loss. | Defendant relied on this to deny liability for Saturday-flood damage; Court rejected the point as procedurally unfair and factually unsupported. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal: Applying the spectrum in Lough Swilly, the Court held the proposed new grounds lay at the impermissible extreme because:
- The issues (flood-defence entitlement and reasonable-use defence) were not pleaded, argued, or evidentially explored in the High Court.
- Introducing them would likely require fresh factual findings and new evidence, prejudicing the Plaintiff and risking an unjust retrial more than 21 years after the events.
- Allowing late amendments would undermine the principle that trials are not “dress rehearsals” and encourage tactical withholding of arguments.
2. Original Ground of Appeal (Damages Segregation):
- The Defendant agreed the global damages figure before trial and never suggested apportionment, thereby signalling that, if any liability were found, the agreed sum would follow.
- Because of that stance, the Plaintiff reasonably presented no evidence distinguishing Friday and Saturday losses.
- Permitting a Performance Cars argument for the first time on appeal would create procedural unfairness and inevitably require a retrial, which the Court deemed “unreal” after two decades.
- Accordingly, the Court refused to disturb the damages award.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court refused the Defendant’s application to amend the notice of appeal and dismissed the original appeal.
Implications: The judgment reinforces the principle that parties must advance all material arguments at trial and that appellate courts will seldom permit new grounds requiring additional evidence. It also confirms that agreed damages will stand where a party’s trial strategy implicitly waives apportionment. No new substantive rule of nuisance law was created; the decision’s chief impact is procedural, signalling stricter control of late-raised arguments and retrial requests.
Alert