High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions

McLoughlin v. Cooper [1999] NIQB 10; [1999] NIJB 90 (14th May, 1999)

SHEC2791
14 May 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

------------

BETWEEN:

THOMAS AND GERALDINE McLOUGHLIN

Plaintiffs/Respondents;

and

SAMUEL COOPER

Defendant/Appellant.

------

BETWEEN:

EAMON AND ANN O'HARE

Plaintiffs/Respondents;

and

SAMUEL COOPER

Defendant/Appellant.

------------

SHEIL J

1. The defendant/appellant in these two civil bill appeals, Mr Samuel Cooper, is a farmer whose property is in proximity to the properties of the plaintiffs/respondents, Mr & Mrs McLoughlin and Mr & Mrs O'Hare.

2. It is clear from the evidence in this case and from Mr Cooper's replies to the interrogatories served by the McLoughlins and the O'Hares that on 2 December 1995 Mr Cooper's cattle strayed from his lands out onto the public road and that thereafter they initially strayed into the O'Hares' garden causing damage thereto and, having been ejected therefrom by Mr O'Hare, went along the highway a short distance before entering into the McLoughlins' garden causing damage thereto.

3. Mr Cooper stated in evidence that for some time prior to 2 December 1995 some people in the locality, other than the parties to these proceedings, had maliciously been cutting his fences and that this accounted for h****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************e in question in this case, the presence of the cattle on the road was not "a lawful use of the public road" so as to come within Article 6(4) of the 1976 Order.

4. The damage done to the respective plaintiffs' gardens was not due to any default or contributory negligence on the part of their respective owners.

5. There is no definition of the word "stray" in the 1976 Order. As there is in my opinion no ambiguity about the meaning of that word, I give to it its ordinary and natural meaning of to wander free from confinement or control: see The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993). The defendant submits that, by reason of the fact that the cattle strayed from his land onto the public road and only thereafter entered the plaintiffs' gardens, Article 5(1) of the 1976 Order does not apply in the present proceedings. I reject that submission. There is no reason to read into the clear words of Article 5(1) the additional words "directly from his lands"; if the legislature had so intended it would have so stated in Article 5(1).

6. I hold that the cattle which caused the damage to the respective plaintiffs' gardens were owned by the defendant and that they had strayed into same, having first emerged from the defendant's lands. I hold therefore that the defendant/appellant is liable at the suit of the respective plaintiffs/respondents in these two civil bill appeals.

7. Mr Cooper accepts that some damage was done to both gardens but disputes the amount of that damage. Neither the McLoughlins nor the O'Hares have carried out remedial work to restore their gardens to their state prior to the cattle trespass on 2 December 1995. Mr Declan Rodgers of Garden Services, who knew the McLoughlins' garden and attended it on a fairly frequent basis, examined it a few days following the incident on 2 December 1995. He provided an estimate of [sterling]1,618 to restore it to its previous condition. Mr McClory who worked as a landscape gardener with Tree Top Nurseries, which had laid out the O'Hares' garden in July 1995, inspected it on or about 4 December 1995 and provided an estimate of [sterling]1,522 to restore it to its previous condition. The last two mentioned witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the respective plaintiffs. The defendant by way of challenge to these claims called Mr Michael Dunford, who is a landscape contractor, and who examined both gardens in May 1997, although he did not actually at any stage go into the O'Hares' garden. He provided an estimate of [sterling]210 to restore the O'Hares' garden and [sterling]160 to restore the McLoughlins' garden. I regard his estimates as being totally unrealistic and not acceptable to the court. I regard the estimates provided by Mr Rodgers and Mr McClory as on the high side. In the case of the McLoughlins, I allow the sum of [sterling]1,300 by way of damages. In the case of the O'Hares, I allow the sum of [sterling]1,200 by way of damages. To that extent I vary the awards made by the learned County Court Judge.

Appearances: Mr Magill for the plaintiffs/respondents

8. Mr Cooper (personal litigant)

Date of hearing: 26 March 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

------------

BETWEEN:

THOMAS AND GERALDINE McLOUGHLIN

9. Plaintiffs/Respondents;

and

SAMUEL COOPER

10. Defendant/Appellant.

------

BETWEEN:

EAMON AND ANN O'HARE

11. Plaintiffs/Respondents;

and

SAMUEL COOPER

12. Defendant/Appellant.

------------

JUDGMENT

OF

SHEIL J

------------