Flooding – Liability for loss or damage. The judge had not erred in having found in the appellants' favour in their nuisance and negligence proceedings against the respondent neighbours concerning water flowing from the respondents' land between 2009 and 2015, flooding the appellants' land. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the respondents' appeal, held that, if one expert's theory fit the facts and the other's did not, the court was entitled to prefer the former over the later and the judge had taken that preferable approach.