The claimant had failed to repair the pump and clear ditches on his own land which had been agreed between the previous owners to give channelled drainage from a lake above.

He attributed the topping of the dykes to the damming with a weir in 1954 of a Middle Ages-enlarged lake (Fritton Decoy) and other features of Somerleyton's upper land.

[1] Green's re-amended particulars of claim before the hearings plead that Fritton Lake is not "present naturally" on the Upper Land...a "reservoir" which Lord Somerleyton has at all material times "maintained"; that it is of such a size that it is reasonably foreseeable that water escaping from it is likely to damage Priory Marshes; and that Lord Somerleyton is accordingly liable for the damage to Priory Marshes caused by the flooding, under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868).

[1] The trustees of Lord Somerleyton's land counterclaimed that they had an easement for the water drainage from a 1921 conveyance by implied reservation, showing it attempted to incorporate a deed of covenant and to bind the property.

[1] Jonathan Parker LJ's judgment approved by the rest of the panel, held that nuisance could cover floodwater relating to a shared conduit.

The 1921 Drainage Deed itself imposed obligations on Lord Somerleyton and his successors (a further indication that the parties were concerned with something more than merely contractual rights) to maintain and work the pump:[1] "... whenever requisite for the purpose of draining the said lands [i.e.