Finding Japanese knotweed growing in your garden can be alarming. Often, homeowners are unsure what to do next. Should you remove it? Do you need to tell your neighbour? Who is responsible for the cost of treatment? What happens if the knotweed has spread from somewhere else?

Before taking action, it is important to understand where the knotweed may have come from and what your legal position may be.

What is Japanese knotweed?

Japanese knotweed is an invasive non-native plant which can spread through an extensive underground system of stems known as rhizomes.

For homeowners, the problem is not necessarily limited to the plants that can be seen above ground. The rhizome system may extend beyond the visible growth and, in some cases, across property boundaries.

Japanese knotweed can therefore become both a treatment issue and a legal issue, particularly where it has spread between neighbouring properties.

Can I remove Japanese knotweed myself?

If you discover Japanese knotweed, your first reaction may be to cut it down or dig it out.

That can create further problems.

There are specific rules concerning the handling and disposal of Japanese knotweed. Once removed, Japanese knotweed material may constitute controlled waste and its disposal is regulated.

In practice, specialist treatment is normally the sensible approach. Treatment may involve a programme lasting several years, depending on the extent of the infestation and the method used.

There is, however, another important step to consider before treatment begins.

If there is any possibility of a dispute about where the knotweed came from, consider having the infestation independently surveyed and documented before it is treated.

Why should I obtain a Japanese knotweed survey?

One of the most important questions in a knotweed dispute is often:

Where did it come from?

A specialist may be able to examine the infestation and provide an opinion on matters such as its extent, maturity, likely direction of spread, evidence of previous treatment and, where possible, its probable origin.

This is an important evidence in a knotweed dispute.

For example, knotweed found in your garden may have originated from neighbouring land. Alternatively, it may have originated within your property and spread towards your neighbour.

Those two situations can have very different consequences.

Treatment can also change the physical evidence available for inspection. If there is a realistic prospect of a dispute, it is therefore sensible to consider obtaining appropriate expert evidence before the infestation is materially disturbed.

What happens if the knotweed came from my neighbour’s property?

If Japanese knotweed has spread from neighbouring land onto your property, there may potentially be a claim in private nuisance.

Japanese knotweed encroachment has been considered in Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams [2018] EWCA Civ 1514. The presence of knotweed rhizomes can constitute a physical interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of their land.

That does not mean that the mere presence of Japanese knotweed next door automatically gives you a claim. The evidence you have i.e any surveyor reports will matter.

Questions may include where the infestation originated, when the neighbouring owner became aware of it, what steps they took to control it, whether it actually spread onto your land and what loss you have suffered as a result.

This is why establishing the likely origin and direction of spread at an early stage can be so important.

What happens if the knotweed came from my property?

The position can work the other way around.

If Japanese knotweed originates on your land and spreads onto neighbouring property, you may potentially face a private nuisance claim if the circumstances establish liability.

Once you become aware of the problem, simply ignoring it can therefore create further risk.

Obtaining professional advice and putting an appropriate treatment programme in place may be important, not only to protect your property but also to demonstrate the steps you have taken to control the infestation and prevent further spread.

This is another reason why determining the likely source of the knotweed matters. A specialist report may be relevant not only when pursuing a claim against somebody else, but also when protecting your position if an allegation is made against you.

What if the knotweed came from council land or another public area?

Sometimes the suspected source is not another homeowner.

Knotweed may be growing on council-owned land, railway land, an alleyway, an unadopted road or another area where ownership is not immediately obvious.

The first question may therefore be: who owns or controls the land?

That may require investigation of the registered titles and other property documents before responsibility can properly be considered.

The courts have considered claims involving Japanese knotweed spreading from public land. In Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2024] UKSC 15, the knotweed had spread from council-owned land.

The Supreme Court’s decision also demonstrates an important point: establishing a breach does not necessarily mean that every loss claimed will be recoverable. The claimant must still establish the necessary causal connection between the breach and the particular loss claimed.

Where the suspected source is public or third-party land, identifying the owner and obtaining appropriate expert evidence can therefore be crucial before deciding what action to take.

What if I only recently bought the property?

There is another potential issue where Japanese knotweed is discovered after purchasing a home.

The seller’s replies during the conveyancing process should be reviewed carefully.

The Law Society’s TA6 Property Information Form contains a specific question concerning Japanese knotweed. Depending on the version of the form used and the answer given, there may be circumstances in which a purchaser considers whether the seller made a misrepresentation about the presence of knotweed.

Relevant documents might include the TA6 form itself, previous surveys, historic photographs, treatment records, guarantees, invoices and correspondence involving the seller, estate agent or conveyancers.

An expert’s opinion about the apparent age of the infestation or evidence of previous treatment may also be relevant.

However, the fact that Japanese knotweed is discovered after completion does not, by itself, establish that the previous owner is liable.

Should I wait for the legal dispute to be resolved before treating the knotweed?

Not necessarily.

Treatment and the legal investigation can often progress alongside one another.

The important issue is to preserve appropriate evidence before treatment materially alters the infestation.

There may also be practical complications where the infestation extends across several properties. A treatment contractor may recommend coordinating treatment across all affected areas. However, you cannot simply assume that you are entitled to enter neighbouring land to carry out treatment.

Where several properties are affected, a coordinated approach may be sensible. Neighbours may agree to participate in the same treatment programme, with the treatment contractor providing separate quotations for the areas within each owner’s responsibility.

If ownership of part of the affected land is unclear — for example, a rear alleyway or shared access — the title position may also need to be investigated and the relevant owner’s consent sought.

How can we help?

Japanese knotweed disputes are rarely just about removing a plant. They can involve property ownership, expert evidence, treatment programmes and potential claims between several different parties.

We can assist by investigating the legal position alongside the technical evidence.

Where the knotweed may have originated from your property, we can also advise on your potential exposure and the steps that can be taken to protect your position.

Where treatment requires cooperation between several landowners, we can assist with correspondence concerning access, responsibility and coordinated treatment.

The objective is not simply to establish that Japanese knotweed exists. It is to control the infestation, preserve the evidence, understand where it came from and determine who may ultimately be responsible.

If you have discovered Japanese knotweed at your property and are unsure what to do next, please do get in touch. Contact us on 020 3440 8000 or email adam.haffenden@tvedwards.com.

The final episode of Succession culminated in a single boardroom vote. Alliances shifted, loyalties fractured and, after four seasons of manoeuvring, the future of Waystar RoyCo turned not on who wanted power most, but on who could secure the votes.

For solicitors who advise on internal governance disputes, it all felt surprisingly familiar.

Strip away the helicopters, media empire and billionaire dysfunction and Succession is really a story about governance. Who has authority? Who gets a vote? Was the process valid? And who, ultimately, controls the organisation?

Those same questions arise every day in companies, charities, professional associations, sports clubs and membership organisations. The stakes may be lower than a multi-billion-dollar takeover, but for those involved, the consequences can be just as significant.

When Politics Becomes Litigation

Most governance disputes do not begin in the courtroom.

They begin with disagreement. A contested election. A disputed board appointment. Questions about voting rights. Concerns over how a meeting was conducted. A challenge to the authority of those in office.

What starts as politics often becomes law.

One faction argues that an election was invalid. Another says a committee was improperly constituted. Rival groups each claim to represent the organisation.

At that point, the dispute is no longer about policy or direction. It becomes a contest over legitimacy.

Like the Roy siblings battling for control of Waystar, governance disputes are often presented as arguments about principle. Beneath the legal language lies a simpler question: who gets to run the organisation?

The irony is that governance disputes are rarely caused by a lack of rules. More often, they arise because everyone suddenly becomes intensely interested in the rules.

The Boardroom Vote Matters

The climax of Succession did not turn on charisma, family status or force of personality. It turned on governance.

A vote was held. The votes were counted. The outcome followed.

Real-world disputes are often no different.

Courts regularly find themselves examining questions such as:

• Was proper notice given?
• Was a quorum present?
• Were voting rights exercised correctly?
• Were constitutional requirements followed?
• Did those making decisions have authority to do so?

To outsiders, these may seem like technicalities. To solicitors, they are frequently the entire case.

A defect in process can undermine an election, invalidate a resolution or cast doubt on the authority of those claiming to act on the organisation’s behalf.

In governance disputes, process is not a sideshow. Process is the main event.

The lesson is often counterintuitive: the larger the dispute, the more likely the outcome will depend on something apparently mundane.

The “Kendall Roy Problem”

Many governance disputes involve what might be called the “Kendall Roy Problem”.

An individual becomes convinced they are the natural successor. They may have experience, support, vision and a genuine belief that they are acting in the organisation’s best interests.

What they do not necessarily have is authority.

The law is full of disappointed Kendalls: people who believed they should be in charge but could not establish that they were entitled to be in charge under the organisation’s governing documents.

Governance disputes are rarely won by the person who wants power most. They are won by the person who can demonstrate a lawful entitlement to exercise it.

Governance is where entitlement collides with procedure. Procedure usually wins.

When Everyone Claims to Be Logan

The most difficult disputes arise when rival groups each claim to be the legitimate leadership of the organisation.

One committee says it is in charge. Another insists it is the lawful governing body. Competing instructions are sent to banks, members and stakeholders. Decisions are challenged. Meetings are disputed.

The result is often paralysis.

At that point, the organisation itself becomes the prize in a struggle for control. The court may be asked to determine who can lawfully speak and act in its name.

For members, employees and stakeholders, the uncertainty can be more damaging than the dispute itself.

By the time proceedings are issued, the real challenge is often not simply determining who is right, but restoring the organisation’s ability to function.

Why Good Governance Beats Great Personalities

Perhaps the most surprising lesson from Succession is that the winner is not the person who spent four seasons demanding power.

The winner is the person who best understood the institution.

That is a lesson many organisations learn the hard way.

By the time governance disputes reach solicitors, the disagreement often appears to be about personalities. In reality, it is usually about structures. Outdated constitutions, unclear voting procedures, poorly documented decisions and ambiguous lines of authority can transform ordinary disagreements into existential battles for control.

We frequently advise organisations where disputes have escalated because governance arrangements were never truly tested until relationships broke down.

The organisations that avoid destructive disputes are rarely those with the strongest personalities. They are those with the strongest governance.

In other words, they spend less time searching for the next Logan Roy and more time ensuring they do not need one.

The Real Lesson

The enduring lesson of Succession is not that power corrupts or that families are dysfunctional.

It is that corporate governance matters.

Power does not belong to the loudest voice, the presumed heir or the person with the most compelling vision. It belongs to those who can demonstrate authority through the rules that govern the organisation.

The law is full of disappointed Kendalls.

It contains far fewer successful Tom Wambsganses.

When governance arrangements break down, organisations can quickly find themselves facing contested elections, competing claims to authority, paralysed decision-making, reputational damage and costly litigation.

Early legal advice is often the difference between resolving a governance disagreement and allowing it to become a governance crisis.

Whether acting for companies, charities, professional bodies, medical associations, membership organisations or office holders, we help clients navigate complex governance disputes, protect their position and restore effective decision-making. Unlike television, most organisations do not get the benefit of a final episode. Getting the governance right before the credits roll is usually the better strategy.

How can we help?

If you need help navigating a governance dispute or want to learn more about our services, contact the Dispute Resolution team on 020 3440 8000 or email disputeresolution@tvedwards.com.

I’d say 90% of the disputes I see start long before anyone calls it a dispute.

That’s probably the biggest lesson I’ve learned from doing dispute resolution work.

The problem usually doesn’t begin with the angry letter.

It doesn’t begin with the solicitor’s letter.

It doesn’t begin with the court proceedings.

It often begins months, sometimes years, earlier, when everyone was getting along perfectly well and nobody thought they needed legal advice.

And that’s where things get interesting.

Because when people are getting along, they tend to trust each other.

Which is lovely.

It’s also when they tend to make some remarkably expensive decisions.

Scenario 1: “It’s only a straightforward agreement.”

You sign an agreement.

You know the person’s name.

You’ve met them.

They seem genuine.

Everyone’s happy.

Except you’ve never checked who you’re actually contracting with.

No proper company details.

No company number.

No registered office.

No check as to whether the person signing actually has authority to bind the company.

Six months later, something goes wrong.

You instruct a solicitor.

The first question is:

“Who exactly is your contract with?”

Silence.

And suddenly something that looked like a straightforward commercial arrangement has become considerably less straightforward.

It’s amazing how much more interesting company details become when you’re trying to enforce an agreement against someone.

Scenario 2: “We signed it. I thought I had a copy.”

Another one I see far too often.

The parties sign an agreement.

Everyone shakes hands.

Keys are handed over.

Money changes hands.

The relationship starts.

And somewhere along the way, the final signed copy of the agreement disappears into the great administrative Bermuda Triangle.

Nobody has it.

One person has a draft.

The other has a slightly different version.

Someone remembers there was an appendix.

Nobody can find it.

And now everyone is trying to establish what they actually agreed to.

This becomes particularly painful when the agreement concerns property.

You hand over the keys to your property portfolio because you have an agreement with someone you trust.

Months later, the relationship breaks down. You want the properties back.

Then you discover that the document you thought governed the arrangement is either unsigned, incomplete, ambiguous or not quite the document you thought it was.

That’s not a good time to discover the importance of paperwork.

Scenario 3: “We’re going into business together.”

This one is probably my favourite. “I’m going into business with a friend.”

Fantastic.

“We trust each other.”

Even better.

“We don’t need a complicated agreement.” And there it is.

The sentence that may eventually become Exhibit A.

Because nobody goes into a partnership expecting it to fail.

But businesses change.

People change.

Money changes people.

Expectations change.

One partner thinks they’re putting in equal time.

The other thinks they’re putting in equal money.

One thinks profits are 50/50.

The other thinks their original investment entitles them to something different.

One wants to sell.

The other doesn’t.

And suddenly the two people who once finished each other’s sentences are communicating through solicitors.

The problem didn’t start when the relationship broke down.

It started when the relationship was good and nobody properly documented what would happen if it didn’t stay that way.

This is why I keep coming back to drafting.

People sometimes think legal drafting is about making documents longer.

It isn’t.

Good drafting is about making things clear.

• Who are the parties?
• What exactly are they agreeing to?
• What does each person have to do?
• When do they have to do it?
• Who owns what?
• What happens if someone doesn’t perform?
• What happens if the relationship breaks down?
• What happens if someone wants out?
• What happens if circumstances change?

And, perhaps most importantly:

What happens when everyone stops getting along?

You don’t write a good agreement because you expect the relationship to fail.

You write it because you understand that circumstances can change.

The slightly uncomfortable truth.

A lot of people are willing to spend thousands of pounds fixing a legal problem they could have prevented for a fraction of the cost.

They’ll spend £50,000 litigating over an agreement they didn’t spend £2,000 properly negotiating.

They’ll spend months trying to recover control of an asset without having properly documented who had what rights in the first place.

They’ll enter a business relationship based on trust and then discover, several years later, that trust isn’t actually a substitute for an agreement.

And then someone says:

“But we all understood what we meant.”

Yes.

Until you didn’t.

That’s the thing about human beings.

We’re remarkably good at assuming that everyone else has the same understanding of a situation that we do.

Right up until the money is on the table.

And this is where dispute resolution really begins.

When people hear “dispute resolution”, they often picture courtrooms, barristers, cross examination and dramatic legal arguments.

The reality is much less glamorous.

Sometimes dispute resolution is looking at a contract before it is signed and saying:

“Hang on. Who exactly is this agreement with?”

Sometimes it’s saying:

“Don’t hand over the keys until we’ve sorted this out.”

Sometimes it’s:

“Before you go into business with your friend, let’s discuss what happens if you stop being friends.”

And sometimes it’s simply:

“Please get a signed copy and keep it somewhere safe.”

Not exactly Hollywood.

But considerably cheaper.

Why early advice matters.

This is why I believe dispute resolution solicitors should not only be called when the dispute has already exploded.

The most valuable advice can come before there is a dispute at all.

It can be about:

• Checking the identity and status of the contracting parties.
• Making sure the right people are signing.
• Ensuring you receive and retain the final signed agreement.
• Properly documenting property and commercial arrangements.
• Advising on partnerships and shareholder relationships.
• Identifying what happens if the relationship breaks down.
• Spotting risks before money, assets or control are handed over.
• Making sure the agreement reflects what the parties actually intend.

Because once the relationship has broken down, everyone suddenly becomes extremely interested in the wording.

Unfortunately, by then, it’s usually too late to improve the contract.

My first piece of dispute resolution advice.

If I could give just one piece of advice in this series, it would be this:

• Get legal advice before making the big decision, not after.
• Before you sign the agreement.
• Before you hand over the keys.
• Before you transfer the money.
• Before you give someone control of an asset.
• Before you enter that partnership.
• Before you rely on a handshake and the words “we trust each other.”

You don’t need to wait until there is a dispute to speak to a dispute resolution solicitor.

In fact, the best time to get dispute resolution advice is when there isn’t a dispute.

Because by the time you’re sitting in a solicitor’s office saying “I wish I’d known this six months ago,” the advice is no longer preventative.

It’s remedial.

And remedial work is almost always significantly more expensive.

Think before the big decision. Get advice before the commitment.

That, in my view, is where good dispute resolution starts.

Part 1 of Nathanael Young’s Dispute Resolution Monthly Series.

Part 2: Can Your Claim Be Struck Out Before Trial?

Because sometimes the first time you discover there is a problem with your case is when the other side asks the court to get rid of it.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.