What was ‘annoyance’ between neighbours
The court considered how to construe a covenant in a lease ‘nor do or wittingly or willingly cause or suffer to be done any act, matter, or thing in or upon or about the said premises, which shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, grievance or damage of the lessor, her heirs and assigns, or the inhabitants of the neighbouring or adjoining houses.’ The tenant wished to establish a hospital for the treatment of various diseases.
Held: ‘Annoyance’ is a word with no definite legal meaning; but that what one had to ask was whether what was being done amounted to interference with the pleasurable enjoyment of the neighbouring property. The wording of such a covenant is deliberately designed to give greater protection than the common law.
Bowen LJ said: ‘The meaning is that which annoys, that which raises an objection in the minds of reasonable men may be an annoyance within the meaning of the covenant.’ and ‘Now, all we have to consider is, on the evidence before us, whether this hospital is a thing which is an annoyance to the lessor or to the inhabitants of the neighbouring or adjoining houses. What is the meaning of the term ‘annoyance’? It implies more, as it seems to me, than ‘nuisance.’ The language of the covenant is, that nothing is to be done, ‘which shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, grievance, or damage of the lessor or the inhabitants of the neighbouring or adjoining houses.’ Now, if ‘annoyance’ meant the same thing as ‘nuisance’ it would not have been put in. It means something different from nuisance. If guided strictly by the Common Law, we know what nuisance is. Whether the term is employed in the covenant in the exact sense of the term at Common Law or not, is a matter that may be doubted, but I will assume as matter of argument only, that ‘nuisance’ in this covenant means only a nuisance at Common Law . . ‘Annoyance’ is a wider term than nuisance, and if you find a thing which reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure, not of a fanciful person or of a skilled person who knows the truth, but of the ordinary sensible English inhabitant of a house – if you find there is anything which disturbs his reasonable peace of mind, that seems to me to be an annoyance, although it may not appear to amount to physical detriment to comfort. You must take sensible people, you must not take fanciful people on the one side or skilled people on the other; and that is the key as it seems to me of this case.’
Cotton LJ said: ‘Then comes the question whether there is an annoyance or grievance either to the adjoining houses or to the houses on the property in question. Now ‘annoyance or grievance’ are words which have no definite legal meaning. It has been pressed upon us that we cannot say that it was that which was an annoyance or grievance to reasonable people, because the Judges, in speaking of what would be an annoyance to reasonable people, are only speaking of what they themselves really think would be an annoyance or grievance. That is the difficulty that Judges very often have to deal with; they must not take that to be an annoyance or grievance which would only be so to some sensitive persons. They must decide not upon what their own individual thoughts are, but on what, in their opinion and upon the evidence before them, would be an annoyance or grievance to reasonable, sensible people; and, in my opinion, an act which is an interference with the pleasurable enjoyment of a house is an annoyance or grievance, and within the definition given by V.-C. Knight-Bruce in Walter v. Selfe (1). It is not sufficient in order to bring the case within the words of the covenant, for the Plaintiffs to shew that a particular man objects to what is done, but we must be satisfied by argument and by evidence, that reasonable people, having regard to the ordinary use of a house for pleasurable enjoyment, would be annoyed or aggrieved by what is being done. In my opinion, it is not necessary in order to shew that there has been reasonable ground for annoyance or grievance, to prove absolute danger or risk of infection. In my opinion a reasonable apprehension of nuisance from acts done by the Defendant is a matter which will produce such interference with the pleasurable and reasonable enjoyment of the adjoining houses as to come within the words ‘annoyance or grievance’; not that any particular person is annoyed or aggrieved, but that there is annoyance or grievance to persons who entertain reasonable views.’
Lindley LJ said: ‘The question which arises is, what is the meaning of the expression ‘shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, or damage’ of the persons named. Certainly that string of words is introduced in order to give the covenantee a greater protection than he would have had without any such words at all, or if only one of those words were used. There is no use in putting in the words ‘any grievance or damage’ as additions to nuisance except for the very purpose of giving some greater protection than he would have had if the word ‘nuisance’ alone were used and included in the covenant.
Still we come back to the question whether that which has been done is not within those words, ‘such as shall cause or may be or grow to the annoyance or grievance of the lessor.’ Now what is the meaning of annoyance? The meaning is that which annoys, that which raises objections and unpleasant feelings. Anything which raises an objection in the minds of reasonable men may be an annoyance within the meaning of the covenant. Then to whom is it to be an annoyance? It must be to ‘the lessor, her heirs or assigns,’ or the inhabitants of the adjoining houses; the lessor is represented by Mr. Tod-Heatly, the owner of the reversion of this property. In this case he says: ‘It is not because I live there, but because my tenants come to me and complain, and it gives me trouble and vexation, since what annoys them is a trouble and vexation to me.’ But the under-tenants, are they not annoyed? Is there nothing done here which raises an objection on their part, looking at them as reasonable beings? Is it a fanciful feeling of distaste? I must say at one time I thought that the Appellant might succeed in shewing that there was really nothing to complain of here except fanciful annoyance to the proprietor and to the inhabitants of the adjoining houses. It struck me there might be some doubt whether there was any annoyance to the neighbouring or adjoining houses – more than some fanciful distaste, which would not be sufficient. But upon the evidence I am satisfied that what has been done really does annoy a great many people on this estate. It appears to me to be unnecessary to decide whether the doctors on the Defendant’s side are right in saying that there is nothing to be.’
Bowen LJ, Cotton LJ, Lindley LJ
(1888) 40 CH D 80
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
Cited – Woods and Another v Riley and Another CA 4-Jul-2005
Neighbours claimed under a covenant requiring the defendants not to use their land in such a way as to cause a nuisance. The neighbours had extended their shop so as to include a post office.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Claims in nuisance . .
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .
Cited – Wood v Cooper 1894
There was a long lease of land with a dwellinghouse built on it. The lease contained covenants: ‘not to erect or build or cause to be erected or built upon the said piece of ground thereby demised, without the previous license in writing of the . .
Cited – Dennis and Another v Davies (B20 (Ch)) ChD 21-Nov-2008
The claimants sought to enforce a restrictive covenant to restrain a neighbour building an extension.
Held: A building could be a source of annoyance and therefore a breach of the particular covenant. The requirement for the builder’s . .
Cited – Davies v Dennis and Others CA 22-Oct-2009
The land owner appealed against an injunction given to prevent him carrying out building works which the neighbours said would breach a restrictive covenant. The covenants negatived a building scheme.
Held: The appeal failed. Covenants of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.230986
