Gillingham Borough Council -v- Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd; CA 1992

References: [1992] 3 All ER 923, [1993] QB 343, [1992] 3 WLR 449
Coram: Cumming-Bruce LJ
Neighbours complained at the development of a new commercial port on the site of a disused naval dockyard. Heavy vehicle traffic at night had a seriously deleterious effect on the comfort of local residents.
Held: Although a planning consent could not authorise a nuisance, it could change the character of the neighbourhood by which the standard of reasonable user fell to be judged.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hunter and Others -v- Canary Wharf Ltd HL (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
    The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
  • Cited – Wheeler and Another -v- JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA (Times 03-Jan-95, [1996] Ch 19, Bailii, [1994] EWCA Civ 8, Bailii, [1994] EWCA Civ 32, [1995] 3 WLR 466, [1995] 2 All ER 697)
    The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
  • Cited – Lawrence and Another -v- Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 360 (QB), [2011] 4 All ER 1314)
    The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .

Leave a Reply