Tenant v Goldwin: 1704

He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. The defendant was liable where he failed to maintain the partition wall in his privy so that the filth ran into the plaintiff’s cellar.

Citations:

(1704) 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] Holt KB 500, [1704] 2 Ld Raym 1089, [1704] 6 Mod Rep 311, [1704] 91 ER 20, 314

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.188028

Hargroves, Aronson and Co v Hartopp: CA 1905

The tenants of a building of which the defendants were landlords sought damages after a rainwater gutter became stopped up and the defendants failed to clear it out for a few days after receiving notice of the stoppage.
Held: The landlords were in breach of a duty of care to the plaintiffs and were liable for the damage done. If a building owner retains common parts which have to be maintained to protect the safe use of the demised properties, he has an obligation to take reasonable care that the parts he retains are not in such a condition as to cause damage to the tenant or to the premises demised.
Lord Alverstone said: ‘A person who maintains an artificial thing like a gutter used for the very purpose of carrying off the rainwater from the roof in an improper condition after notice may be said, in my opinion to be guilty of an act of commission, and he is, in my opinion, under a duty to take care that as a result of that act no damage happens to the occupants of the house.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone

Citations:

[1905] 1 KB 472

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

FollowedTennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation 1988
A property comprised a large building let on fully repairing leases of 22 units. The many rain outlets were allowed to become blocked, and water accumulated above one unit before that part of the roof collapsed. The landlord appealed a finding that . .
CitedWestminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
CitedJackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194604

Baird v Williamson: 1863

The parties worked mines on adjacent land. Water flooded the plaintiff’s mine and he sought damages from the defendant.
Held: He was liable. The water from the defendant’s mine had been raised to a higher level by pumping (‘non-naturally’) and then flowed into the other mine.

Citations:

[1863] 15 CB(NS) 317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188027

Dale v Hall: 1750

Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God.

Citations:

(1750) 1 Wils 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.188036

Broxbourne Borough Council, Regina (On the Application of) v North and East Hertfordshire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 3 Apr 2009

The council appealed against refusal of an abatement order in respect of a statutor nuisance by the defendant by artificial light. A veterinary surgeon had erected a light which stayed on all night but which was adjacent to a neighbour’s bedroom. A light of the sort recommended would have cost under a hundred pounds. Some andpound;13,000 had been expended in costs to date.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(fb)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.329570

Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company v Broadbent: HL 4 Aug 1859

If a Plaintiff applies for an injunction in respect of a violation of a common law right, and the existence of that right, or the fact of its violation is denied, he must establish his right at law, but having done that, he is, except under special circumstances, entitled to an injunction to prevent a recurrence of that violation.
For such a purpose the award of an arbitrator is equivalent to a verdict.
If between the time of the case being referred and the award being made there has been an alteration in the mode of carrying on the business complained of, it may, if in diminution of the cause of injury, be shown as an answer to the application for an injunction; but if in increase of the cause of injury, it need not be the subject of a fresh proceeding at law; that is matter for the discretion of the Court of Equity. A Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for an injury to his business occasioned by the erection. of gas works; the action was referred to arbitration; nearly two years elapsed before the award was made, in the course of which time alteratione in the mode of carrying on the business complained of were effected; two months after the date of the award the injunction was applied for: Held, that there had not been any such. acquiescence as to deprive the Plaintiff of his right to the injunction.

Judges:

Lord Campbell LC

Citations:

[1859] EngR 915, (1859) 7 HLC 600, (1859) 11 ER 239

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBroadbent v The Imperial Gas Company 31-Jan-1857
. .

Cited by:

CitedArmstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd CA 1959
The plaintiff had a path at the rear of his property. The defendant constructed a sewer under the path, and asked the plaintiff for permission. He gave it informally, not knowing at the time that he owned the land. The sewer was constructed. Though . .
CitedMiller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Equity, Nuisance

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.288267

Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd: CA 1953

The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show that the defendants created or continued the cause of the trouble; and it must be remembered that a person may ‘continue’ a nuisance by adopting it, or in some circumstances by omitting to remedy it. . This liability for nuisance has been applied in the past to sewage and drainage cases in this way: when a local authority take over or construct a sewage and drainage system which is adequate at the time to dispose of the sewage and surface water for their district, but which subsequently becomes inadequate owing to increased building which they cannot control, and for which they have no responsibility, they are not guilty of the ensuing nuisance. They obviously do not create it, nor do they continue it merely by doing nothing to enlarge or improve the system. The only remedy of the injured party is to complain to the Minister [of Health, under the 1936 Act enforcement procedure].’

Judges:

Lord Evershed, the Master of the Rolls, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] Ch 149

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedBaron v Portslade Urban District Council 1900
The local authority was held liable for omitting to clean a sewer. The existence of a procedure for the enforcement of statutory duties did not exclude common law remedies for common law torts, such as a nuisance arising from failure to keep a sewer . .

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
FollowedSmeaton v Ilford Corporation ChD 1954
Overloading caused the corporation’s foul sewer to erupt through a manhole and discharge ‘deleterious and malodorous matter’ into Mr Smeaton’s garden.
Held: The authority were not liable for the connections with the sewer and discharge of . .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
DistinguishedDear v Thames Water and Others 1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.188633

Whatling v Rees: 1914

Citations:

[1914] 84 LJKB 1122

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.184806

SFI Group plc (formerly Surrey Free Inns plc) v Gosport Borough Council; Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex p Cataldo: CA 29 Mar 1999

When considering the facts of a notice served under the Act, the court must look to the situation at the time when the notice is served, and not at the time when the case or appeal came to be heard. The previous Act used different wordings.

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1126

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Resumed fromSurrey Free Inns v Gosport Borough Council CA 12-Jun-1998
A noise abatement notice had been served, and appealed to the magistrates. By the time the matter came before the Crown Court, the bar had been soundproofed. The question then was which was the applicable time.
Held: In view of the contrasting . .

Cited by:

Adjourned toSurrey Free Inns v Gosport Borough Council CA 12-Jun-1998
A noise abatement notice had been served, and appealed to the magistrates. By the time the matter came before the Crown Court, the bar had been soundproofed. The question then was which was the applicable time.
Held: In view of the contrasting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146041

Budd v Colchester Borough Council: CA 3 Mar 1999

A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that any works were required. A local authority properly served a simple notice requiring abatement of a nuisance found of a dog barking. It had no general duty to specify the steps required to be undertaken to abate the nuisance save in circumstances where this was clearly required. ‘The local authority does have a choice of merely requiring a result in a particular case. Whether that will give rise to a ground of appeal other than the one with which we are currently concerned, namely that there is an informality, defect, or error in the notice, is an entirely separate matter. There may well be argument about alternative requirements or a whole variety of other matters. We are not concerned with that. . . . In a case such as the present, dealing with barking dogs, there is no necessity, either in setting out the nuisance to indicate the levels of barking which the dogs have exhibited so as to constitute a nuisance, or the precise times when they have been barking so as to constitute a nuisance, or in requiring the abatement of the nuisance, for the nuisance to specify precisely what has to be done about the nuisance.’

Judges:

Schiemann L.J

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 14-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 885, (1997) Env LR 128

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Wheatley 1885
If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. . .
CitedMcGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
CitedMillard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
Appeal fromBudd v Colchester Borough Council QBD 1996
This was a dog-barking case in which the Court had to consider an abatement notice. It was argued that a notice which did not specify the level of barking which constituted the nuisance and which did not specify precisely what was to be done to . .

Cited by:

Appeal heardBudd v Colchester Borough Council CA 30-Jan-1997
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145800

Regina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett: CA 26 Feb 1999

A steep staircase in a house which might lead to an accident was not because of that fact a statutory nuisance. It was not directly prejudicial to health as required by the Act for liability.

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-1999, Gazette 31-Mar-1999, Gazette 10-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 869, [1999] 1 WLR 1170, (1999) 31 HLR 1102, [1999] Env LR 587

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part III

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett Admn 13-May-1998
The risk of an accident from a steep staircase to a disabled tenant was not a statutory nuisance. The possibility of an accident is not the same as a source of injury to health. Buxton LJ: ‘The limitation of the reach of this Statute to disease and . .
Appeal fromRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett Admn 13-May-1998
The risk of an accident from a steep staircase to a disabled tenant was not a statutory nuisance. The possibility of an accident is not the same as a source of injury to health. Buxton LJ: ‘The limitation of the reach of this Statute to disease and . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett Admn 13-May-1998
The risk of an accident from a steep staircase to a disabled tenant was not a statutory nuisance. The possibility of an accident is not the same as a source of injury to health. Buxton LJ: ‘The limitation of the reach of this Statute to disease and . .
Appealed toRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett Admn 13-May-1998
The risk of an accident from a steep staircase to a disabled tenant was not a statutory nuisance. The possibility of an accident is not the same as a source of injury to health. Buxton LJ: ‘The limitation of the reach of this Statute to disease and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Nuisance

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145784

Parish v Judd: 1960

A lorry and a car it was towing stopped, obstructing the highway. The plaintiff crashed into them, and claimed that they constituted a nuisance. The vehicles had only just stopped, and the driver was checking that all was well with the car. The court was asked as to the alleged liability of the driver of the stationary car into which that carrying the plaintiff crashed, notwithstanding that the former vehicle was clearly visible 100 yards away.
Held: ‘the mere fact that an unlighted vehicle is found at night upon a road is not sufficient to constitute a nuisance’. Although the vehicle was so ‘found’, its driver might nevertheless be exculpated if, for example, it emerged that it was only momentarily stationary and that without fault on his part.

Judges:

Edmund Davies J

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 867

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.265960

Tennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation: 1988

A property comprised a large building let on fully repairing leases of 22 units. The many rain outlets were allowed to become blocked, and water accumulated above one unit before that part of the roof collapsed. The landlord appealed a finding that since the roof was not comprised in any of the leases, there was an implied duty on it to repair the roof.
Held: There was no necessary implication of business efficacy to allow the implication of the term. The tenant was himself in breach for having failed to clear the outlet above his own property. The landlord was liable in nuisance for failing to clear the other rainwater outlets. The 1945 Act did not apply since the tenant’s failure was not tortious. Nevertheless, the tenant was liable as to 10%. ‘More importantly, however, for present purposes, the archaic and draconian rule of the common law which the 1945 Act was passed to override also has no application to the present case, since that rule had no relevance to a claim in, or in my judgment to a breach of, contract which was not also itself tortious. . . The problem which this court faces, on claim and counterclaim alike, is in my judgment a problem of causation of damage. On the claim, the question is how far the damage to its goods which the lessee has suffered was caused by the corporation’s negligence notwithstanding the lessee’s own breach of covenant. On the counterclaim, the question is how far the damage to the corporation’s building which the corporation has suffered was caused by the lessee’s breach of covenant, notwithstanding the corporation’s own negligence. The effect is that on each question, apportionment is permissible. This is the same result as the 1945 Act would produce, but it is not reached through the Act, because the obstacle which the 1945 Act was passed to override is not there on either claim or counterclaim in the present case.’ Croome-Johnson: ‘If the 1945 Act has no application, what is the position on the two claims? The evidence clearly indicates that the damage to the plaintiff’s premises was attributable to two concurrent causes, both operating contemporaneously. One was the defendant’s negligence and the other was the plaintiff’s breach of covenant . . . If the collapse had been caused by the combined negligence of the defendant and some third party, the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover all its damages from the defendant, leaving it to get contribution from its fellow tortfeasor . . . But that does not apply when the other cause comes from the plaintiff himself . . . A tenant who is in breach of his repairing covenant must pay for all the costs of repair or of the damage to the reversion. But the position is different if the covenantee is the selfsame landlord who has caused nine-tenths of the damage to the roof. . . . It is not possible, therefore, to allow both the claim and counterclaim in full and to set off the two awards of damages. Where one is dealing with two contemporaneous causes, each springing from the breach of a legal duty but operating in unequal proportions, the solution should be to assess the recoverable damages for both on the basis of causation.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Croom-Johnson LJ, Caulfield J

Citations:

[1988] 1 EGLR 41, [1988] 11 EG 71

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedBarnes v City of London Real Property Co Ltd 1918
The landlord defendants had let various sets of rooms imposing on the tenants an obligation to pay a stated additional rent specifically for the cleaning of rooms by a house-keeper to be provided for the purpose. The agreements placed no express . .
DistinguishedEdmonton Corporation v Knowles (WM) and Son Ltd 1962
The court was able to imply from a provision in a lease obliging the tenant to pay to the landlords ‘the cost . . of painting in a workmanlike manner every third year of the term all outside wood and metal work and other external parts of the . .
FollowedSleafer v Lambeth Borough Council CA 1959
The plaintiff held a weekly residential tenancy of the defendant local authority. The front door was defective and jammed. The tenancy agreement contained a covenant by the tenant to keep the flat in good and tenantable repair. When the tenant . .
AppliedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
FollowedHargroves, Aronson and Co v Hartopp CA 1905
The tenants of a building of which the defendants were landlords sought damages after a rainwater gutter became stopped up and the defendants failed to clear it out for a few days after receiving notice of the stoppage.
Held: The landlords . .
DistinguishedGrant v Sun Shipping Co 1947
. .
DistinguishedForsikringsaktieselskapt Vesta v Butcher HL 1988
A contract of insurance and a facultative reinsurance, under which part of the original risk was reinsured, contained warranties in identical terms.
Held: The warranty in the reinsurance policy, which was governed by English law, should be . .

Cited by:

CitedW Lamb Limited (Trading As The Premier Pump and Tank Company) v J Jarvis and Sons Plc TCC 31-Jul-1998
Contractors built a petrol station, and sub-contractors the underground piping. Leaks developed, and it was agreed to complete repairs, and apportion financial repairs through the court proceedings. In a case where a judge found it difficult to . .
DoubtedBank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) CA 1990
When a contract is to be construed purposively, the court must look to the purposes of both parties, not just one of them. No apportionment was to be applied under the 1945 Act: ‘Similarly, we think that the facts and circumstances of the present . .
CitedJackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.182954

Radstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council: 1976

Citations:

[1967] Ch 1094

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRex v Bell 1822
‘that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time’ . .

Cited by:

appliedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council QBD 5-Nov-1999
Owners of land downstream of a culvert had their lands flooded after works on land upstream changed the water flow, causing the culvert to be inadequate to cope with the water now running off.
Held: The culvert did not constitute a nuisance, . .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183034

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor: 26 Aug 1937

(High Court of Australia)

Judges:

Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ

Citations:

[1937] 58 CLR 479, [1937] HCA 45

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedCadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd PC 13-Oct-1980
(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.181817

Gautret v Egerton: 1867

A man fell to his death when crossing a bridge used with the consent and permission of the defendants by persons proceeding to and coming from the defendants’ docks.
Held: The claim by his widow against the bridge owner was dismissed.
Willes J said: ‘What duty does the law impose upon these Defendants to keep their bridges in repair? If I dedicate a way to the public which is full of ruts and holes the public must take it as it is. If I dig a pit in it I may be liable for the consequences: but if I do nothing, I am not.’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

(1867) LR 2 CP 371

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedBarlow v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Jun-2020
Presumption of dedication dates back.
The claimant tripped over a tree root raising a path in the park. The court was now asked whether the pathway through a public park, but which was not a public right of way, was maintainable at public expense as a highway governed by the 1980 Act. . .
CitedBarlow v Wigan Council QBD 19-Jun-2019
Responsibility for personal injury after trip over a tree root on a path in a park owned and maintained by the Council. The Court was now asked whether the public footpath was a highway under the 1980 Act for which the council was responsible for . .
CitedGulliksen v Pembrokeshire County Council CA 11-Jul-2002
The claimant had tripped on a footpath on a housing estate. There was a depressed manhole cover on the footpath over which he tripped. The footpath had been constructed by Pembrokeshire County Council, who were both the local housing authority and . .
CitedMcGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 24-Jun-1994
The plaintiff lived with her husband in a house in a housing estate of which he was a tenant. Part of the land of the estate, in the ownership of the defendant housing authority, was crossed by footpaths, over which the public had acquired the right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.181270

Oakley v Birmingham City Council: QBD 8 Jan 1999

The justices had concluded that the layout itself of premises was so unhygienic as to be ‘in a state prejudicial to health.’ The small toilets without a wash basin and next to the kitchen created a risk of cross-infection, and were a statutory nuisance.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBirmingham City Council v Oakley HL 29-Nov-2000
When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.84406

Baxter v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden (2): CA 5 Nov 1998

A tenant taking a lease of defective premises could not complain of nuisance arising from that defect in the absence of contractual or statutory obligations. Poor sound-proofing between flats no nuisance where there was no sound-proofing standard applicable

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1703, [2001] QB1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145182

Harvie v Robertson: 1903

The pursuer sought an interdict against the defender from carrying on the operation of lime-burning on his land: ‘the question whether a proprietor complaining of such injury has a title and interest to interfere does not depend exclusively upon present injury to his land. He is entitled to take into account not only the actual inconvenience and discomfort caused to people living on the ground by noxious fumes, but also the injury to the value of the property and the prospect of using it for advantageous purposes, other than those to which it is actually applied at the moment.’

Judges:

Lord Kinnear

Citations:

(1903) 5 F 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195607

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd: 1961

A plaintiff who has standing to sue, including a member of the household of the landowner, should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels.
Veale J started from the position of the ‘ordinary man’ in considering whether an activity was in conformity with the character of the area: ‘who may well like peace and quiet but will not complain, for instance, of the noise of traffic if he chooses to live on a main street in an urban centre, nor of the reasonable noises of industry, if he chooses to live alongside a factory’

Judges:

Veale J

Citations:

[1961] 2 All ER 145, [1961] 1 WLR 683

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195605

Cunard v Antifyre Ltd: 1933

Talbot J defined private nuisance as an interference by owners or occupiers of property with the use or enjoyment of neighbouring property.

Judges:

Talbot J

Citations:

[1933] 1 KB 551

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

MentionedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedJackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195592

Metropolitan Properties v Jones: 1939

The defendant had been tenant of one of the plaintiffs’ flats but had assigned his lease. The assignee disappeared and the tenant, who as original lessee remained liable for the rent, went back into possession. In response to an action for rent, he counterclaimed for nuisance constituted by the noise from a motor on the plaintiffs’ premises which operated the central heating system. The court would have awarded the defendant andpound;21 damages but dismissed the counterclaim because he had no title.

Judges:

Goddard LJ

Citations:

[1939] 2 All ER 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedMalone v Laskey CA 1907
A company’s manager resided in a house as its licensee. His wife was injured when a bracket fell from a wall in the house. She claimed damages from the defendants in nuisance and negligence. The claim in nuisance alleged that the fall of the bracket . .

Cited by:

DoubtedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195597

Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood: 14 Dec 1983

High Court – New Zealand. The glass roof of a verandah which deflected the sun’s rays so that a dazzling glare was thrown on to neighbouring buildings was held, prima facie, to create a nuisance. Hardie Boys J said: ‘To the extent that this is an appeal to set the public interest ahead of the private interests of the plaintiffs, then I regret that authority requires me to close my ears to it’

Judges:

Hardie Boys J

Citations:

[1984] 1 NZLR 525

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195588

Motherwell v Motherwell: 1976

(Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court) The court recognised that not only the legal owner of property could obtain an injunction, on the ground of private nuisance, to restrain persistent harassment by unwanted telephone calls to his home, but also that the same remedy was open to his wife who had no interest in the property: ‘Here we have a wife harassed in the matrimonial home. She has a status, a right to live there with her husband and children. I find it absurd to say that her occupancy of the matrimonial home is insufficient to found an action in nuisance. In my opinion she is entitled to the same relief as is her husband, the brother.’

Judges:

Clement JA

Citations:

(1976) 73 DLR (3d) 62

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Citing:

AppliedFoster v Warblington Urban District Council CA 1906
A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, . .

Cited by:

FollowedKhorasandjian v Bush CA 16-Feb-1993
The plaintiff was an eighteen year old girl who had had a friendship with the defendant, aged 28. The friendship broke down and the plaintiff said she would have no more to do with him, but the defendant did not accept this. There were many . .
DoubtedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195593

Robinson v Workington Corporation: CA 1897

Mr Robinson’s houses were damaged by water overflowing from the council’s public sewers. The sewers were adequate until new houses were built. He claimed damages in respect of the council’s failure to build a new sewer of sufficient dimensions to carry off the increased volume of sewage.
Held: The court dismissed his claim. The 1875 Act provided a mechanism for enforcing performance of the statutory drainage obligation. The remedy available for breach of the drainage obligation was determined by the statute, which provided that in cases of default the Local Government Board should make an appropriate order which, if not complied with, was enforceable by a writ of mandamus. That was the only remedy: ‘It has been laid down for many years that, if a duty is imposed by statute which but for the statute would not exist, and a remedy for default or breach of that duty is provided by the statute that creates the duty, that is the only remedy. The remedy in this case is under section 299, which points directly to section 15, and shews what is to be done for default of the duty imposed by that section. That is not the remedy sought for in this action, which is brought to recover damages.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1897] 1 QB 619

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedGlossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board CA 9-May-1879
The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time. . .

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
ConfirmedPasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council HL 1898
Where an Act creates an obligation, and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.
Earl of Halsbury LC said: ‘The principle that where a specific remedy is given . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.188627

Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council: CA 8 Jan 2001

A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an obstruction leading to the claimant’s property being flooded. It was checked regularly, but no steps taken to increase the capacity. It was held that the local authority could become liable in nuisance when such a feature for which they had responsibility came to be an obstruction to the escape of material occurring naturally on land.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 300, [2000] EWCA Civ 299, [2001] BLR 55

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41 58(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council QBD 5-Nov-1999
Owners of land downstream of a culvert had their lands flooded after works on land upstream changed the water flow, causing the culvert to be inadequate to cope with the water now running off.
Held: The culvert did not constitute a nuisance, . .
CitedCorporation of Greenock v Caledonian Railway Company HL 1917
The West Burn flowed in a channel considerably below the surrounding ground which drained into it and in particular was below the level of Inverkip Road. In 1908, in order to form a playground for children, the natural channel of the West Burn was . .
CitedSedleigh-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 . .
AppliedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
CitedPemberton v Bright and Another CA 1960
A culvert had been altered and extended in 1926 and the entrance left uncovered and unprotected.
Held: The interference with the flow of water created a potential nuisance in that ‘heavy rain was always a potential danger unless properly . .
CitedRadstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .
CitedGoldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
CitedRex v Bell 1822
‘that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time’ . .
CitedGlossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board CA 9-May-1879
The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time. . .
CitedSmeaton v Ilford Corporation ChD 1954
Overloading caused the corporation’s foul sewer to erupt through a manhole and discharge ‘deleterious and malodorous matter’ into Mr Smeaton’s garden.
Held: The authority were not liable for the connections with the sewer and discharge of . .
CitedGreat Central Railway v Hewlett HL 1916
A railway company had been empowered to erect in a highway certain gateposts and in a war-time blackout a taxi-driver had run into them. The company was found not liable for the accident.
Held: The accident was caused by the post which had . .
CitedMoore v Lambeth Waterworks Co 1886
The defendants were found not liable when a fireplug lawfully fixed in a highway had become exposed as the road surface had worn. . .
CitedThompson v Brighton Corporation CA 1894
A manhole cover became exposed as the road surface eroded, causing injury.
Held: The Corporation were not liable. . .
CitedPride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd CA 1953
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show . .
CitedHurst and Another v Hampshire County Council CA 19-Jun-1997
A Local Authority is liable for any damage to adjacent property caused by the roots of a tree growing on the verge of a public highway.
Held: Pre-adoption trees vest in the highway authority for all purposes. . .
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedNeath Rural District Council v Williams QBD 1951
A watercourse became silted by natural causes and the local authority served an abatement notice on the landowner, who failed to respond, and when prosecuted relied on a proviso which excluded from liability ‘any person other than the person by . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
CitedDear v Thames Water and Others 1992
. .
CitedJob Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors CA 1924
Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out . .

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.78788

Chastey v Ackland: CA 1895

The two properties were in a terrace backing onto an area popularly used as a urinal. The defendant raised his wall by sixteen feet causing a stagnation of the air in the yard, making the other houses less healthy. The court at first instance granted an injunction against the new building.
Held: on appeal, that since the defendant was not the originator of the nuisance, the stagnation air caused by the new building was not actionable either as interference with an easement or as a nuisance. The injunction was discharged. A right to air from particular direction can be established by immemorial user, though not by prescription. Lindley LJ said: ‘speaking generally, apart from long enjoyment, or some grant or agreement, no one has a right to prevent his neighbour from building on his own land, although the consequence may be to diminish or alter the flow of air over it on to land adjoining. So to diminish a flow of air is not actionable as a nuisance.’

Judges:

Lopes LJ, Lindley LJ

Citations:

[1895] 2 Ch 389, [1895] 64 L J QB 523, [1895] 72 LT 845, [1895] 43 WR 627, [1895] 11 TLR 460, [1895] 39 Sol Jo 582

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBland v Moseley 1587
The court distinguished the elements of an easement of light and an easement of air. In the absence of an easement, a building may be erected so as to restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour’s land. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromChastey v Ackland HL 22-Feb-1897
Immemorial user . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195586

Bradburn v Lindsay: 1983

The plaintiffs sued the owner of the adjoining house which had deteriorated so badly it had had to be demolished. The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported.
Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a semi-detached dwelling) and the judge applied the measured duty of care principle, to find her liable for damage resulting. The defendant should reasonably have appreciated the danger to the plaintiffs’ property from the dry rot and from the lack of repair of the defendant’s property and, because there were steps which the defendant could reasonably have taken to prevent the damage occurring, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiffs to take such steps. The judge rejected the suggestion from the defendant that the claimants could have gone onto the property and taken appropriate steps to prevent the damage themselves.

Judges:

Judge Blackett-Ord VC

Citations:

[1983] 2 All ER 408

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.188047

Hudson v Cripps: 1896

Citations:

[1896] 1 Ch 265

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.442753

Rex v The Commissioners of Sewers for the Levels of Pagham: 1828

The court considered responsibility for the inroads of the sea. The Commissioners erected groynes and other works to defend the stretch of coast for which they were responsible against the sea’s encroachment. But the consequence was that the sea flowed with greater force upon adjoining land, whose owner brought proceedings.
Held: ‘I am . . of opinion that the only safe rule to lay down is this, that each land-owner for himself, or the commissioners acting for several land-owners, may erect such defences for the land under their care as the necessity of the case requires, leaving it to others, in like manner, to protect themselves against the common enemy.’

Judges:

Lord Tenterden CJ

Citations:

(1828) 8 B and C 355

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedArscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.199368

London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Others: CA 29 Jul 1998

The authority appealed against an award made in arbitration proceedings brought by its tenant who complained that she could hear everything happening in a neighbouring flat, even though the tenants of that flat wer acting reaosnably.
Held: (Sir Peter Gibson dissenting) The appeal succeeded. A landlord’s duty to provide quiet enjoyment under his covenant for that purpose, does not extend so far as to require an improvement in the sound-proofing of a building well beyond standards which had applied at the time when the houses were built.
Sir Peter Gibson said that if the noise made by neighbouring tenants in the course of their ordinary use of their flats amounted to an interference with Mrs. Tanner’s reasonable use of her flat, she could be estopped from complaining only if she had expressly or impliedly consented to the noise.

Judges:

Schiemann, Mantell, Peter Gibson LJJ

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1998, Gazette 09-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1319, [1999] 2 WLR 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others ChD 11-Mar-1998
A claim for a breach of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, through the sound of normal activities from a neighbour being heard, succeeded. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144798

Dublin United Tramways Co Ltd v Martin Fitzgerald: HL 1903

The plaintiff sued when his horse slipped on tramlines in the road and fell. Stone setts or paving between the rails of a tramway in Grafton Street, Dublin, had become slippery owing to the grit or roughness of setts being worn away. In that state, the paving between the rails was dangerous and a nuisance, particularly when wet. The defendants said that they had no obligation to remedy transient conditions of rain or snow by putting down sand.
Held: The tramway company were negligent in the omission of sanding and as a result were negligent in the maintenance of the pavement. The 1870 Act is to be construed in the context of an interference with the highway. The promoters, ‘while they are permitted to use the public highway, shall take care that the safety and convenience of the public shall be preserved’ and ‘What they have got to keep in good condition is the structure or fabric of the roadway. But the surface is part of that structure or fabric, and, as this is a roadway, a very important part . . .’
Lord Robertson said that the surface of the roadway was part of the structure or fabric of the roadway, and, if the authority used materials having a kind of surface which would be in bad condition in wet weather ‘they must from time to time supply by sand to this material what other materials might of themselves in all conditions supply by the roughness of their own surface.’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury, Lord Robertson

Citations:

[1903] AC 99

Statutes:

Tramways Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoe v Sheffield City Council and others CA 17-Jan-2003
The claimant sought damages after his car was involved in an accident when a wheel struck a part of a tramway standing proud of the road surface. The defendant argued that they were excused liability by the 1988 Act, incorporating the effects of the . .
CitedDepartment for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.181215

Thomas and Another v Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd: QBD 8 Oct 2012

The claimant complained of nuisance from adjoining car auctions works belonging to the defendants.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2654 (QB), [2013] Env LR 12

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd CA 19-Mar-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others CA 2012
Jackson LJ set out the way in which planning consents would affect whether actions amounted to a nuisance: ‘I would summarise the law which is relevant to the first ground of appeal in four propositions. (i) A planning authority by the grant of . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMerthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd v Thomas and Another CA 11-Jul-2013
The company appealed against an award of 9,000 pounds for nuisance in the form of excessive noise and fumes.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the grant of planning permission cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance but it may, following its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472251

Murdoch and Another v Glacier Metal Company Limited: CA 19 Jan 1998

Excess noise by nearby factory above World Health Organisation level was not an actionable nuisance. It was a question for each factual situation. An allowance had to be made for the character of the neighbourhood.

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse Lord Justice Pill And Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

Gazette 18-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 33, Times 21-Jan-1998, [1998] EG 6, [1998] Env LR 732, [1998] EHLR 198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
CitedMillard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
CitedWalter v Selfe 1851
The burning of bricks on he defendant’s land was a nuisance to the plaintiff’s neighbouring house. An injunction was granted. The court should ask: ‘ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere . .
CitedRushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Limited CA 1906
The court considered the question of whether excess noise could constitute a nuisance.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a resident of a district specially devoted to a particular trade cannot complained of nuisance by noise caused by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Environment

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143511

Chartered Trust Plc v Davies: CA 31 Jul 1997

Judges:

Staughton, Henry LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2256, [1997] 2 EGLR 83, [1997] 49 EG 135

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142653

Regina v Lam and Others (T/a ‘Namesakes of Torbay’) and Borough of Torbay: CA 30 Jul 1997

The claimant sought damages after the planning authority allowed the first defendant to conduct a manufacturing business in the course of which spraying activities took place which caused them personal injuries and loss of business.
Held: The planning system is a regulatory system as envisaged in X (Minors), such that there should be no private right of action for a breach of statutory duty. The claim failed.

Judges:

Potter, Brooke LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2247, [1997] PIQR P488

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 29, Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part III, Public Health Act 1936 91

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStrable v Dartford Borough Council CA 1984
A local authority is not liable in damages for a negligent failure properly to complete its planning law duties. No action lay and the remedy available to an individual in such a case is to object on appeal to the Secretary of State and, if still . .
CitedDunlop v Woolahara Municipal Council PC 1981
A council had no liabiity in a private action for damages for a breach of statutory duty in its handling of a planning application. While doubting that it was so, Lord Diplock left open the question whether an individual injuriously affected by . .
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
CitedSion v Hampstead Heath Authority CA 1994
A young man was injured in a motor-cycle accident and was taken to the defendant’s hospital. His father attended to him at his bedside for fourteen days, watching him deteriorate in health, fall into a coma and die. The father alleged that the staff . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedMarc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others HL 6-Jul-1995
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea.
Held: The marine classification . .
CitedBuxton v Minister of Housing and Local Government 1961
The planning functions of a local authority are exercised in the public interest. Salmon J said: ‘The scheme of the Town and Country Planning Legislation, in my judgment, is to restrict development for the benefit of the public at large and not to . .
CitedStringer v Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1970
The material considerations to be allowed for by the local authority in exercising its planning functions are considerations of a planning nature, ‘all considerations relating to the use and development of land are considerations which may, in a . .
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedRyeford Homes v Seven Oaks District Council 1989
The planning function is exercised by a local authority on behalf of the public at large and not for private individuals. . .
CitedTidman v Reading Borough Council QBD 4-Nov-1994
The plaintiff wanted to sell his land. The purchaser wished to know the planning status and prospects for the land. The local authority published a leaflet encouraging those interested to seek guidance from the authority’s planning officers. The . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedWelton, Welton v North Cornwall District Council CA 17-Jul-1996
The defendant authority appealed a finding that it was liable in negligence from the conduct of one of its environmental health officers. The plaintiff had set out to refurbish and open a restaurant. He said the officer gave him a list of things he . .
CitedDorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedAnns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .

Cited by:

CitedKane v New Forest District Council CA 13-Jun-2001
A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Personal Injury, Planning, Local Government

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142644

Budd v Colchester Borough Council: CA 30 Jan 1997

The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor stated what works were required to be undertaken to cure it.
Held: There were competing decisions, and the case should properly go forward to appeal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton Thomas And Lord Justice Hutchison

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 880

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
CitedNetwork Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one . .
Appeal heardBudd v Colchester Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1999
A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Environment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141276

Robbins v London Borough of Bexley: TCC 16 Aug 2012

The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by subsidence after dessication of the soil by trees under the defendant’s control.
Held: The defendants were liable.

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2257 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)

Citing:

CitedBerent v Family Mosaic Housing and Another CA 13-Jul-2012
The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by the roots of plane trees on neighbouring land for which the defendants were responsible. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRobbins v London Borough of Bexley CA 17-Oct-2013
The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463659

Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and Another: CA 13 Jul 2012

The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by the roots of plane trees on neighbouring land for which the defendants were responsible.

Judges:

Mummery, Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 961

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRobbins v London Borough of Bexley CA 17-Oct-2013
The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which . .
CitedRobbins v London Borough of Bexley TCC 16-Aug-2012
The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by subsidence after dessication of the soil by trees under the defendant’s control.
Held: The defendants were liable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462557

Hounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd: Admn 23 May 2003

An abatement notice was served on the respondent in respect of the stink emanating from their sewage works. The magistrates decided that the workls did not constitute premises within the section, following Parlby.
Held: Parlby was not binding, whiuch was limited to the Act under which the decision was made. The definition of a statutory nuisance had been entirely recast by the 1990 Act. The new definition of nuisance had exceptions, and was complete.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Pitchford J

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] EWHC 1197 (Admin), [2003] 3 WLR 1243, [2004] QB 212

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(d) 80(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not bindingRegina v Parlby 1889
Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.183838

Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others: CA 19 Dec 1994

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 and incomplete information.
The court considered the function of a gate: ‘The function of a gate is different from that of a fence. A gate is intended to prevent ingress and egress only when it is shut. It is of the essence of a gate that it can be opened whereas a fence cannot be opened and . . the covenant to fence does not refer to a gate.’ (Peter Gibson LJ)
Staughton LJ considered the significance of planing permissions as to nuisance: ‘One can readily appreciate that planning permission will, quite frequently, have unpleasant consequences for some people. The man with a view over open fields from his window may well be displeased if a housing estate is authorised by the planners and built in front of his house; the character of the neighbourhood is changed. But there may be nothing which would qualify as a nuisance and no infringement of his civil rights. What if the development does inevitably create what would otherwise be a nuisance? Instead of a housing estate the planners may authorise a factory which would emit noise and smoke to the detriment of neighbouring residents. Does that come within the first proposition of Cumming-Bruce LJ, that a planning authority has no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance? Or is it within the second, that the authority may change the character of a neighbourhood?’ and
‘It would in my opinion be a misuse of language to describe what has happened in the present case as a change in the character of a neighbourhood. It is a change of use of a very small piece of land, a little over 350 square metres according to the dimensions on the plan, for the benefit of the applicant and to the detriment of the objectors in the quiet enjoyment of their house. It is not a strategic planning decision affected by considerations of public interest. Unless one is prepared to accept that any planning decision authorises any nuisance which must inevitably come from it, the argument that the nuisance was authorised by planning permission in this case must fail. I am not prepared to accept that premise. It may be – I express no concluded opinion – that some planning decisions will authorise some nuisances. But that is as far as I am prepared to go.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1995, [1996] Ch 19, [1994] EWCA Civ 8, [1994] EWCA Civ 32, [1995] 3 WLR 466, [1995] 2 All ER 697

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedGillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd CA 1992
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 . .
CitedAllen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd CA 1980
The exercise of the permission to develop granted by the local planning authority may have the result that the character of the neighbourhood changes and that which would previously have been a nuisance must be held no longer to be so

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedAdam v Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury CA 28-Jul-2005
The neighbour parties disputed the existence of a right of way over one plot. The grant was for the use of a garage yet to be constructed, on ground to be excavated by the grantor, accessible only from a roadway which was only partly constructed, at . .
CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
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. . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning, Land, Nuisance

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.90439

Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence: QBD 16 Apr 2003

The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. The particular noise is loud and characterised by a very rapid onset with a corresponding startle effect. The question arose whether and in what circumstances a sufficient public interest can amount to a defence to a claim in nuisance.
Held: The noise was a continuing nuisance, and no question of limitation arose. The Harriers were not an oirdinary use of land, within the legal meaning of that phrase. Major developments in any society will interfere with the private enjoyment of nearby land. There was no statute here, only the fact that the noise had escalated. The public interest clearly demands that RAF Wittering should continue to train pilots, and a declaration should not be granted, and the losses were capable of financial satisfaction. There was an interference both with Article 1 and Article 8 rights, but damages would provide just satisfaction.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 793 (QB), Times 06-May-2003, [2003] 2 EGLR 121, [2003] 2 EGLR 121, [2003] NLJR 634, [2006] RVR 45, [2003] 19 EGCS 118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDunton v Dover District Council 1977
References to decibels in actions for noise nusance, are not helpful unless compared with everyday sounds to which others can all relate. . .
CitedShelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
CitedSturges v Bridgman CA 1879
The character of the neighbourhood in which the plaintiff lives should, for the law of nuisance, include established features: ‘whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the . .
CitedRushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Limited CA 1906
The court considered the question of whether excess noise could constitute a nuisance.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a resident of a district specially devoted to a particular trade cannot complained of nuisance by noise caused by . .
CitedPolsue and Alfieri v Rushmer HL 1907
The House approved a decision that a person purchasing property in an industrial district may be unable to claim for noise nuisance. Lord Loreburn LC said that (i) whether an activity gives rise to a nuisance may depend on the character of the . .
CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
CitedThames Water Utilities Limited v Marcic CA 7-Feb-2002
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant’s sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to . .
CitedAllen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd HL 29-Jan-1980
An express statutory authority to construct an oil refinery carried with it the authority to refine. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘It is now well settled . .
CitedPowell and Rayner v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1990
The applicants complained of the noise generated by Heathrow Airport saying that it affected their human rights to enjoy their private life and possessions.
Held: Whether the case was analysed in terms of a positive duty on the state to take . .
CitedHatton and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Oct-2001
The appellants claimed that the licence of over-flying from Heathrow at night, by making sleep difficult, infringed their rights to a family life. The times restricting over-flying had been restricted. The applicants’ complaints fell within a . .
CitedFarley v Skinner HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surveyor. He had asked the defendant whether the house he was to buy was subject to aircraft noise. After re-assurance, he bought the house. The surveyor was wrong and negligent. A survey would not . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedKennaway v Thompson CA 30-Apr-1980
The plaintiff’s property adjoined the defendant’s boating lake over which the defendant had, over several years, come to run more and more motor boat sports events. The trial judge had found that the noise created by the racing was an actionable . .

Cited by:

CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
CitedDobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land, Human Rights

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.181380

Cambridge City Council v Douglas: QBD 22 Mar 2001

The council issued an abatement notice on a public house with respect to noise from music inside. The notice included reference to a provision that an appeal would not suspend the notice, and that the authority could carry out works in default and recover the cost. The occupier appealed saying it was ambiguous. The divisional court held that the notice did not require works but the exercise of control, and the reference to works did not prevent it being capable of suspension. The notice was unambiguous.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.78839

John Smith and Company (Edinburgh) Ltd v Hill and Others: ChD 11 May 2010

Two cross-applications for summary judgment by, respectively, the first two defendants and the claimant in proceedings which, as between them, constitute a claim in nuisance by a reversioner upon a lease, against the Administrators of the reversioner’s own landlord.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1016 (Ch), [2010] 2 BCLC 556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.415089

Crump v Lambert: CA 1867

Lord Romilly MR considered the acquisition of a right to commit a nuisance by prescription.
Held: An injunction was granted to restrain the issue of smoke and noise. He said: ‘It is true that, by lapse of time, if the owner of the adjoining tenement, which, in case of light or water, is usually called the servient tenement, has not resisted for a period of twenty years, then the owner of the dominant tenement has acquired the right of discharging the gases or fluid, or sending smoke or noise from his tenement over the tenement of his neighbour; but until that time has elapsed, the owner of the adjoining or neighbouring tenement, whether he has or has not previously occupied it, – in other words, whether he comes to the nuisance or the nuisance comes to him, – retains the right to have the air that passes over his land pure and unpolluted, and the soil and produce of it uninjured by the passage of gases, by the deposit of deleterious substances, or by the flow of water.’

Judges:

Lord Romilly MR

Citations:

(1867) LR 3 Eq 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
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. . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.430352

Malzy v Eichholz: CA 1916

A landlord is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment in respect of a nuisance caused by another of his lessees, even if he knows the lessee is causing the nuisance and takes no steps to prevent it. To be liable for nuisances committed by his tenant, it is not enough for them to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it, he must either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘It is quite a novel doctrine to me that permission by a lessee to use demised premises for a purpose which may or may not involve or create a nuisance is a wrong act on the part of the landlord, and that the landlord can be rendered liable merely because a person does carry on that business in such a manner as to create a nuisance. It would be different, of course, if it were let for a purpose which necessarily involved a nuisance, but this letting did not necessarily involve a nuisance. That is quite plain from the plaintiff’s own evidence. He says there was no ground for complaint until the Dents came into possession.’

Judges:

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR

Citations:

[1916] 2 KB 308

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.442752

Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions and Another v Lawrence and Others: CA 27 Feb 2012

The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding that the actual use of the Stadium and the Track over a number of years, with planning permission, or a CLEUD, could not be taken into account when the assessing the character of the locality for the purpose of determining whether an activity is a nuisance.
Lewison LJ expressed a provisional obiter view that, contrary to the judge’s conclusion, it is possible to obtain by prescription a right to commit what would otherwise be a nuisance.

Judges:

Mummery, Jackson, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 26, [2012] Env LR 28, [2012] 1 WLR 2127, [2012] 3 All ER 168, [2012] WLR(D) 49, 141 Con LR 79, [2012] 1 EGLR 165, [2012] 10 EG 88, [2012] PTSR 1505

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
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. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Appeal fromCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
See AlsoCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning, Land

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451500

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd: CA 19 Mar 2012

The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action in nuisance is one for interference with property rights, loss of amenity value and the right to claim damages for it does not turn on any exceptional sensitivity or insensitivity of the person entitled to exclusive possession. Carnwath LJ said: ‘The common law of nuisance has co-existed with statutory controls, albeit less sophisticated, since the 19th century There is no principle that the common law should ‘march with’ a statutory scheme covering similar subject matter Short of express or implied statutory authority to commit a nuisance . ., there is no basis, in principle or authority, for using such a statutory scheme to cut down private law rights’
Carnwath LJ set out the law of nuisance in this sort of case: ‘In my view this case is governed by conventional principles of the law of nuisance, which are well-settled, and can be found in any of the leading text books. Thus, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (20th edn, 2010) Ch20, the third category of nuisance is that caused by a person ‘unduly interfering with his neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of land’ . . Relevant to this case are the following rules. (i) There is no absolute standard; it is a question of degree whether the interference is sufficiently serious to constitute a nuisance. That is to be decided by reference to all the circumstances of the case . . (ii) There must be a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average man . . or in the familiar words of Knight Bruce VC: ‘not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people.’ (See Walter v Self [1851] 4 DeG and Sm 315 at 322, [1851] 64 ER 849 at 852). (iii) The character of the neighbourhood area must be taken into account. Again in familiar nineteenth century language, ‘what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’. (. . Thesiger LJ, Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 ChD 852 at 856) . . iv) The duration of an interference is an element in assessing its actionability, but it is not a decisive factor; a temporary interference which is substantial will be an actionable nuisance . . (v) Statutory authority may be a defence to an action in nuisance, but only if statutory authority to commit a nuisance is expressed or necessarily implied. The latter will apply where a statutory authority authorises the user of land in a way which will ‘inevitably’ involve a nuisance, even if every reasonable precaution is taken . . (vi) The public utility of the activity in question is not a defence . . ..’

Judges:

Arden, Carnwath, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 312, [2012] WLR(D) 86, [2012] 3 All ER 380, [2012] 2 PandCR 6, [2012] HLR 28, [2013] QB 455, [2012] 13 EG 90, (2012) 141 Con LR 1, [2012] PTSR 1527, [2012] 2 EGLR 157, [2012] 3 WLR 795, [2012] BLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd TCC 15-May-2009
The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance . .
Appeal fromBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) TCC 2-Oct-2009
. .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3) TCC 19-Apr-2011
The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes. . .
Costs judgment belowBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .

Cited by:

CitedMerthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd v Thomas and Another CA 11-Jul-2013
The company appealed against an award of 9,000 pounds for nuisance in the form of excessive noise and fumes.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the grant of planning permission cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance but it may, following its . .
CitedThomas and Another v Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd QBD 8-Oct-2012
The claimant complained of nuisance from adjoining car auctions works belonging to the defendants. . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452171

X v A, B, C: ChD 29 Mar 2000

Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs?
Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Ch 121

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
CitedRe Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No 2) 1-Jun-1963
An application was made for the trustee to be replaced. The trustee complained that he would remain liable in certain events, and sought an indemnity from any new trustee out of the trust fund.
Held: A new trustees would be under ‘the normal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.162992

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation v Wolstanton Ltd: 1947

The tort of nuisance is directed against the plaintiff’s enjoyment of his rights over land, and an action of private nuisance will usually be brought by the person in actual possession of the land affected, either as the freeholder or tenant of the land in question, or even as a licensee with exclusive possession of the land.

Judges:

Evershed J

Citations:

[1947] Ch 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.195589

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3): TCC 19 Apr 2011

The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1003 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd TCC 15-May-2009
The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance . .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) TCC 2-Oct-2009
. .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd CA 19-Mar-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action . .
ApprovedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432869

Lyon v Fishmongers’ Co: HL 1876

Access to the river Thames via the plaintiff’s wharf was obstructed and this was sufficient to give rise to a successful action in private nuisance.
A riparian owner has a private law right to gain access to its frontage by boat.
Riparian rights do not depend on ownership of the soil of a stream; they attach to land in either lateral or vertical contact with a stream. The grant of a fee simple to the bed of the river may be subject to common law riparian rights
Cairns LC said:-
:’Unquestionably the owner of a wharf on the river bank has, like every other subject of the realm, the right of navigating the river as one of the public. This, however, is not a right coming to him qua owner or occupier of any lands on the bank, nor is it a right which, per se, he enjoys in a manner different from any other member of the public. But when this right of navigation is connected with an exclusive access to and from a particular wharf, it assumes a very different character. It ceases to be a right held in common with the rest of the public, for other members of the public have no access to or from the river at the particular place; and it becomes a form of enjoyment of the land, and of the river in connection with the land, the disturbance of which may be vindicated in damages by an action, or restrained by an injunction.
The taking away of the river frontage of the wharf, or the raising of an impediment along the frontage, interrupting the access between the wharf and the river, may be an injury to the public right of navigation; but it is not the less an injury to the owner of the wharf, which, in the absence of any Parliamentary authority, would be compensated by damages, or altogether prevented.’

Judges:

Lord Selborne, Lord Cairns LC

Citations:

(1876) 1 App Cas 662

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedTate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.192597

Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and another v Sherwood and another: CA 18 Feb 2002

The applicants had constructed kiosks on the highway with permission from the local authority under the 1990 Act. They also had licences under the 1980 act to operate as street traders. The authority later complained that the sales from the structures were not street sales, and the licences were not valid.
Held: The licensing system was intended to supplement the law of nuisance, by proscribing street trading falling short of nuisance. Trading from such structures was not street trading, and was not regulated under the 1990 Act. It was not appropriate to decide the question of whether an offence had occurred, by looking at tiny questions of when in time the sales took place. There was no promise to be implied allowing the traders a licence, or that they should be granted a lease. Nevertheless, there was an estoppel against the local authority which had represented that a licence would continue for 22 years, and it would be held to it.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Longmore LLJ

Citations:

Gazette 27-Feb-2002, Times 04-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 229, [2002] LLR 329

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

London Local Authorities Act 1990 21(1), Highways Act 1980 Part VIIA

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Licensing, Nuisance, Estoppel

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.167710

Rex v Trafford: KBD 1831

The river Mersey and an associated brook overflowed their banks in wet weather at the place in question, and the waters went north and west over adjoining lands, at length flowing back into the Mersey. The affected landowners raised banks (referred to as ‘fenders’) to confine the flood waters to the river and the brook. A canal, carried over the Mersey on an aqueduct, was constructed by authority of Parliament. The aqueduct had three arches taking the canal across the land where the flood waters naturally went. Thereafter the flow of water in the Mersey was increased by improved drainage higher up the river. So the landowners raised the height of their fenders. This pushed up the height of the flood water so as to endanger the canal and its aqueduct. The canal owners prosecuted the landowners on indictment for a nuisance. The jury delivered a very complicated special verdict which, under the procedure of the time, was then referred to the Court of King’s Bench.
Held: In favour of the prosecutor: ‘Now, it has long been established, that the ordinary course of water cannot be lawfully changed or obstructed for the benefit of one class of persons, to the injury of another. Unless, therefore, a sound distinction can be made between the ordinary course of water flowing in a bounded channel at all usual seasons, and the extraordinary course which its superabundant quantity has been accustomed to take at particular seasons, the creation and continuance of these fenders cannot be justified.’

Judges:

Lord Tenterden

Citations:

(1831) 1 B and Ad 874

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Removed in error (appealed) toTrafford v Rex CEC 1832
Landowners next to the Mersey had raised the banks to prevent floodwaters coming on to their land. This raised the water level threatening a canal. The landowners appealed a conviction.
Held: A guilty verdict of guilty would only be . .

Cited by:

Removed in Error from (appealed)Trafford v Rex CEC 1832
Landowners next to the Mersey had raised the banks to prevent floodwaters coming on to their land. This raised the water level threatening a canal. The landowners appealed a conviction.
Held: A guilty verdict of guilty would only be . .
CitedArscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.199369

Regina v Shorrock: CACD 1993

The defendants used land for an unauthorised ‘acid party’ which caused substantial inconvenience and disruption to neighbours. The defendant denied that he had had the requisite knowledge to be criminally liable.
Held: This was capable of amounting to the crime of public nuisance. An act of public nuisance can give rise to both civil (through a relator action) and criminal liability. The court considered what was the necessary mens rea for the offence of public nuisance, and applied Sedleigh-Denfield, saying (Rattee LJ) that he was guilty ‘if either he knew or he ought to have known, in the sense that the means of knowledge were available to him, that there was a real risk that the consequences of the licence granted by him in respect of his field would be to create the sort of nuisance that in fact occurred’.

Judges:

Rattee LJ, Simon Brown LJ and Popplewell J

Citations:

[1993] 98 Cr App R 67, [1994] QB 279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedSedleigh-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 by:

CitedGoldstein, Rimmington v Regina CACD 28-Nov-2003
Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedRose vDirector of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency by behaving in an indecent manner contrary to common law. He had been in the foyer of a bank at night with a girl who performed oral sex. The action could have been seen, but was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Crime

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.188880

Black v The Christchurch Finance Company Limited: PC 16 Dec 1893

(New Zealand) Lord Shand, said: ‘The lighting of a fire on open bush land, where it may readily spread to adjoining property and cause serious damage, is an operation necessarily attended with great danger, and a proprietor who executes such an operation is bound to use all reasonable precautions to prevent the fire extending to his neighbour’s property (sic utere tuo at alienum non laedas).’

Judges:

Lord Shand

Citations:

[1893] UKPC 60, [1894] AC 48

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417634

Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council: Admn 5 Feb 2013

The appellant challenged an order to pay over andpound;18,000 costs after losing her complaint of statutory nuisance against the Parish Council. She had complained as to the noise coming from a playground.
Held: She had brought the proceedings knowing of several reasons making her action inappropriate and unnecessary. However, she had followed proper procedures, the case had an evidential basis, supported by expert evidence, and ‘this prosecution cannot be described as having been, at the outset and in the way that it was pursued, so self-evidently lacking in merit that the case should not have been brought or, put otherwise, it was without any realistic prospect of success.’ The order was quashed.

Judges:

Goldring LJ, Fulford J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 356 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(1), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Denning 1991
Nolan LJ considered the test for whether proceedings had been begiun ‘unnecessarily or improperly’so as to decide the question of costs awards in Magistrates proceedings, saying: ‘I would add in this connection that the word ‘improper’ in this . .
CitedSuffolk County Council v Rexmore Wholesale Service Limited Admn 1994
A costs order had been made against the prosecution, who now appealed.
Held: It was necessary to look at the relevant decisions at the point the proceedings were instituted rather than applying a level of knowledge gathered later: ‘With the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Nuisance, Costs

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.472494

Castelli, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Merton: Admn 5 Feb 2013

The claimant challenged a finding that a neighbours four trees did not amount to high hedges within the legislation.
Held: The Act contained a definition and with some difficulties, the letter rejecting the assertion that the trees formed a hedge, sufficient had been said to found a decision that there was no hedge.

Judges:

Nicholas Paine QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 602 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.471986

Lambert and Others v Barratt Homes Ltd (Manchester Division) and Another: QBD 17 Feb 2009

The claimant sought damages in nuisance and negligence saying that in constructing a new housing estate, they had altered the land in such a way as to lead to the repeated flooding of their home.
Held: Both the developer and the council were liable. It had been intended to provide a drainage gully. The first defendants had given representations that in making the alterations they would provide appropriate drainage, but had in fact constructed a fence in such a way as to restrict it. Though the use of land for housing was not a non-natural use, and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher did not apply, the original developer remained liable in nuisance and even if he had sold the land on. ‘Barratt was negligent in constructing the eastern boundary of its development in such a way as to restrict the natural flow of water from the south eastern corner of the retained land past the Springfield Road properties. It was reasonably foreseeable that the resulting restricted gap for the reasons I have given would not cope with the volume of water that could flow from the retained land, particularly after heavy rain; that the water would encroach into the claimants’ and other Springfield Road properties to the south of them; that damage would result. In my judgment, such encroachment resulted from an unreasonable use of the land which Barratt had purchased from Rochdale and constituted a nuisance the effects of which continue to the present and will continue until abated.’

Judges:

Grenfell J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 744 (QB), [2009] 32 EG 70, [2009] Env LR D14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHolbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
CitedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedArscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
CitedGoldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
CitedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedPalmer and Another v Bowman and Another CA 27-Oct-1999
There is no easement of right for an owner of higher land for water naturally to drain off over neighbouring lower land, and nor was an easement required. The doctrine of lost modern grant need not be applied. Although the higher land owner had no . .
CitedGreen v The Right Honourable Lord Somerleyton and others CA 28-Feb-2003
The parties owned areas of marshland divided by a road. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendants had no right to allow floodwater to escape over his land from what he said was an artificial reservoir on the defendant’s land. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.375576

Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke: CA 15 Feb 2006

The council had taken proceedings against a farmer whose production of swill, for feeding to pigs, was emitting a smell which local residents found scarcely tolerable. Rather than suffer the making of an injunction against him, the farmer had undertaken not to cause a public nuisance at his premises. The duration of the undertaking was not limited in time. Thereafter the council took committal proceedings in which the farmer admitted that he had broken the undertaking by the continued emission of smells. The judge duly fined him but then decided to release him from part of his undertaking by limiting its further duration to two years.
Held: Allowing the Council’s appeal, if a judge concluded that a party’s undertaking given to the court and embodied in a final order was inappropriate, it was preferable for the matter to be dealt with by an appeal rather than by the judge himself seeking to release the undertaking.

Judges:

Lord Justice Gage Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 71, Times 10-Mar-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 9-Feb-2006
. .
CitedKensington Housing Trust v Oliver CA 1997
After the tenant caused flooding of flats underneath her flat. As a result the landlord had obtained an order for possession of it but it had undertaken to the court to offer the tenant specified alternative accommodation at basement or ground floor . .
See AlsoMid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 7-Apr-2005
. .

Cited by:

Valuable guidanceBirch v Birch SC 26-Jul-2017
The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Agriculture, Planning, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.239895

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc: QBD 2 Nov 2000

The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority’s costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority’s request was reasonable.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Sep-2000, Times 12-Oct-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromWandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc CA 30-Jul-2001
Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land, Environment

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90288

Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd: CA 1957

In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private nuisance.
Held: Romer LJ said: ‘I do not propose to attempt a more precise definition of a public nuisance than those which emerge from the textbooks and authorities to which I have referred. It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is ‘public’ which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as ‘the neighbourhood’; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has so been affected for an injunction to issue.’

Lord Justice Denning: ‘What is the difference between a public nuisance and a private nuisance? He [that is counsel] is right to raise it because it affects his clients greatly. The order against them restrains them from committing a public nuisance, not a private one. The classic statement of the difference is that a public nuisance affects Her Majesty’s subjects generally, whereas a private nuisance only affects particular individuals. But this does not help much. The question: ‘When do a number of individuals become Her Majesty’s subjects generally’ is as difficult to answer as the question: When does a group of people become a crowd? Everyone has his own views. Even the answer ‘Two’s company, three’s a crowd’ will not command the assent of those present unless they first agree on ‘which two’. So here I decline to answer the question how many people are necessary to make up Her Majesty’s subjects generally. I prefer to look to the reason of the thing and to say that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.’

Judges:

Romer, Denning LJJ

Citations:

[1957] 1 All ER 894, [1958] EWCA Civ 1, (1957) 121 JP 323, [1957] 2 QB 169, [1957] 2 WLR 770

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge CA 10-Oct-2001
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a . .
CitedGoldstein, Rimmington v Regina CACD 28-Nov-2003
Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an . .
CitedRegina v Johnson CACD 14-May-1996
The defendant had used public telephones to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress. He had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least 13 women, and was convicted of causing a public nuisance. He argued that no call . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
CitedNottingham City Council v Zain (a Minor) CA 31-Jul-2001
The council had power under the Act to seek, in its own name, an injunction to prevent an alleged drug-dealer minor to enter a housing estate, and put an end to public nuisances. The authority was not acting outside its powers if it considered the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Fearon Admn 10-Feb-2010
The prosecutor appealed against the defendant’s acquittal for causing a public nuisance in having approached a woman police officer posing as a prostitute. He said that as a single act it could not amount to a nuisance. The prosecutor argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.188784

Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2): TCC 2 Oct 2009

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd TCC 15-May-2009
The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3) TCC 19-Apr-2011
The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes. . .
See AlsoBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .
Appeal fromBarr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd CA 19-Mar-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376191

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd: CA 1956

The Act gave a defence to liability for a fire which started accidentally, this did not cover a fire which started by negligence.

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

[1956] 1 WLR 85, [1956] 1 ALL ER 154, [1955] EWCA Civ 5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.188017

Ballard v Tomlinson: CA 1885

The parties were neighbouring land owners, and each had a deep well. The defendant emptied the sewage from his property into his well, and this polluted also the neighbour’s well. The pollution was actionable. His behaviour appropriated the water percolating through his land and he had no right of ownership of that water even though he had pumped it. No one may use his own land so as to cause a nuisance to his neighbour, and somebody who puts filth or poisonous waste on his land must ensure it does not escape to poison his neighbour’s land.

Citations:

(1885) 29 ChD 115, (1885) 54 LJ Ch 454

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

FollowedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc: Cambridge Water Company v Hutchings and Harding Ltd CA 19-Nov-1992
The defendants operated a plant using chlorinated solvent chemicals which, over a long period had seeped through the floor of their factory and into the chalk subsoil, eventually polluting the plaintiff’s water supply some mile and half away. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.188012

Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors: CA 1924

Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out the fire, and now sought to allocate the costs. Mr Vachell QC, for the canal company argued that: ‘No doubt a person on whose estate any fire shall accidentally begin is exempted from liability by s. 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774, for damage caused by that fire; and it may be admitted that a fire accidentally began upon land belonging to the respondents. But the fire which caused or threatened to cause damage to the appellants’ property was not the fire which accidentally began on the respondents’ land, when it might have been extinguished quickly and easily, but the fire which was from May to October, 1920, allowed to increase and become formidable: Musgrove v. Pandelis.’
Held: The mine-owners were not liable to the canal owners. There was no public nuisance, and no evidence that they had either caused or contributed to the fire. Scrutton LJ dissenting, said that that there was no justification for the distinction between public and private nuisance.
Bankes LJ considered the distinction between a public nuisance (which he said a land owner had a duty to abate) and a private nuisance (which he said gave rise to no such duty). As to the custom relating to fire: ‘The case of fire has always been looked upon in our law as a somewhat exceptional case. It was no doubt the ancient law or custom of England that a person in whose house a fire originated which afterwards spread to his neighbour’s property and destroyed it must make good the loss, but I do not consider that rule as opposed to the view I am putting forward in regard to liability for injury done by a private nuisance, as the ancient law no doubt considered a fire as a public nuisance owing to the danger of its spreading. The view of the law which I am taking does not touch a case where the private nuisance has been caused, or allowed to continue, by any act or default on the part of the occupier of the land on which it exists.’
As to the defence under section 86. As to that he said: ‘Mr Vachell contended that whatever may have been the cause of the original fire it ceased to be an accidental fire within the meaning of the statute when the plaintiffs were informed of it, and that within the reasoning of the decision in Musgrove v Pandelis the fire as from that date must be treated as a second and independent fire. I cannot draw any such inference from the facts of the present case. In Musgrove v Pandelis Lush J drew from the facts the inference that there were in substance either two fires, the first an accidental one which did no damage, and the second which was due to negligence and did the damage; or alternatively that there was only one fire within the meaning of the statute, and that was the one due to negligence. This Court agreed with the view of the learned judge, but the facts of that case are very special, and have in my opinion no bearing upon the case we are now dealing with.’
Scrutton LJ dissented. He discussed the duty at common law: ‘There is a great deal to be said for the view that if a man finds a dangerous and artificial thing on his land, which he and those for whom he is responsible did not put there; if he knows that if left alone it will damage other persons; if by reasonable care he can render it harmless, as if by stamping on a fire just beginning from a trespasser’s match he can extinguish it; that then if he does nothing, he has ‘permitted it to continue,’ and become responsible for it. This would base the liability on negligence, and not on the duty of insuring damage from a dangerous thing under Rylands v Fletcher. I appreciate that to get negligence you must have a duty to be careful, but I think on principle that a landowner has a duty to take reasonable care not to allow his land to remain a receptacle for a thing which may, if not rendered harmless, cause damage to his neighbours.’
As to section 86, he said: ‘That statute (14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 86) provides that no action shall lie against any person in whose house or on whose estate ‘any fire shall accidentally begin.’ This fire undoubtedly began accidentally so far as the landowner and his agents were concerned. It has been decided that the statutory restriction of the previous common law liability does not exclude liability for fires caused by negligence of the owner or persons for whom he is responsible, or by dangerous things for which the owner is responsible under the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher. This leaves the difficult question – suppose the fire is caused by a trespasser, as if he throws down a match; and suppose the owner comes by immediately afterwards, sees the small fire, and could with no trouble extinguish it by stamping on it, but does not do so, so that the fire spreads and damages his neighbour, is he freed by the statute? He is then aware of a dangerous thing on his land which may damage his neighbour, and which by reasonable care he can prevent from damaging his neighbour, and he does nothing. I agree he is not an absolute insurer of that dangerous thing, for he did not himself create it, but I think on principle he is bound to take reasonable care of a dangerous thing which he knows to exist. Take the case of an ordinary house fire, where a coal leaps from the grate. If no one knows of the fire caused by the coal till it cannot be stopped, that fire may be within the protection of the statute, though Duke LJ doubted it in Musgrove v Pandelis. But suppose the owner sees it jump out, could extinguish it with a moment’s trouble, and does not trouble to do so, could he plead the statute to protect him? In Musgrove v Pandelis, where the real danger arose from the fact that the defendant’s servant negligently did not turn a tap to stop a supply of petrol to a fire, the Court treated the fire as two fires; I should respectfully have thought that it was safer to say that the fire was continued by negligence, and that the cause of action was not for a fire accidentally begun, but for negligence in increasing such a fire.’

Judges:

Bankes LJ, Astbury J, Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1924] 1 KB 341, [1924] 93 LJKB 261, [1924] 68 Sol Jo 501

Statutes:

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJob Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors 1923
Rubbish was tipped on land belonging to a canal company and on adjoining land belonging to mine owners. The rubbish on the mine owners’ land was found to be on fire, and the canal company feared that the fire might spread to their own land. Having . .
CitedMusgrove v Pandelis CA 2-Jan-1919
The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms.
Held: The Act did not provide a . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Dissenting judgment ApprovedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.188041

Anderson v Oppenheimer: CA 1880

The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by the defendant’. Water was supplied through pipes from a cistern. A pipe leaked, letting water into the plaintiff’s basement premises, damaging his goods. No negligence was found.
Held: There was no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The water had been stored for the benefit of the plaintiff as much as for anyone else, and so a Rylands -v- Fletcher claim was not available. Although the escape of water was a consequence of the maintenance of the cistern and water supply by the landlord, it was not a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. It did not constitute an act or omission by the landlord or anyone lawfully claiming through him after the lease had been granted. The water system was there when the tenant took his lease and he had to take the building as he found it.

Citations:

[1880] 5 QBD 602, [1880] 49 LJQB 708

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.188021

Foster v Warblington Urban District Council: CA 1906

A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, which belonged to the lord of the manor. The plaintiff excluded everybody from the oyster beds, and nobody interfered with his occupation of the oyster beds or his removal and sale of oysters from them.
Held: He could sue the defendant Council in nuisance, notwithstanding that he could not prove his title.
Stirling LJ said: ‘I think, therefore, that, as against a private individual, the plaintiff would have a right of action, and I do not think that this case can be governed by the decision in the case of Corporation of Truro v. Rowe. There the contest arose between the owners of the foreshore and a person who claimed simply to be availing himself of a public right of fishing. Here the contest arises, in my view, between the person who is in occupation of a portion of the foreshore and a wrongdoer. Whether the plaintiff would be able to resist the claims of the owner of the foreshore, whoever he may be, or the owner of a several fishery, if such fishery exists, or of a member of the public exercising a right of fishery, if there be such a right in the present case, seems to me immaterial for the purposes of this case . .’ Since jus tertii is not a defence to an action of nuisance, a person who is in exclusive possession of land may sue even though he cannot prove title to it.

Judges:

Stirling LJ

Citations:

[1906] 1 KB 648

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedPaxhaven Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General 1974
(New Zealand) The court considered what interest in land was required to found an action in private nuisance: ‘In my opinion, however, the matter is clear in principle. In an action for nuisance the defence of jus tertii is excluded, and it is no . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
AppliedMotherwell v Motherwell 1976
(Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court) The court recognised that not only the legal owner of property could obtain an injunction, on the ground of private nuisance, to restrain persistent harassment by unwanted telephone calls to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195590

Morgan and Another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd: CA 2 Mar 2009

The claimants had alleged that smells from a composting site near their homes constituted a private nuisance. Following the discharge of an interim injunction, Judge Seymour ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the injunction proceedings. The claimants appealed against the costs order on the ground that this imposed upon them prohibitive expense, contrary to article 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention.
Held: The claimants appeal was dismissed. The court reviewed the history of protective costs orders. Carnwath LJ summarised the status of the Aarhus Convention in English law as follows: ‘For the purposes of domestic law, the Convention has the status of an international treaty, not directly incorporated. Thus its provisions cannot be directly applied by domestic courts, but may be taken into account in resolving ambiguities in legislation intended to give it effect (see Halsbury’s Laws Vol 44(1) Statutes para 1439)). Ratification by the European Community itself gives the European Commission the right to ensure that Member States comply with the Aarhus obligations in areas within Community competence (see Commission v France Case C-293/03 (2004) ECR I-09325 paras 25-31. Furthermore provisions of the Convention have been reproduced in two EC environmental Directives, dealing respectively with Environmental Assessment and Integrated Pollution Control (neither applicable in the present case).’ and It is unnecessary, in our view, to consider the application of the Convention in further detail, because there is in our view an insuperable objection to the claimant’s case in this respect. That is that the point was not mentioned before the judge. This is admitted by Mr Hart. His answer is that the requirement to comply with the Convention is ‘an obligation to the Court’, which should have been considered by the judge of his own motion; or alternatively, it is a requirement on this court in reviewing the judge’s decision in order to avoid contravention of the Convention.
We are unable to accept that argument. Mr Hart could not point to any legal principle which would enable us to treat a pure treaty obligation, even one adopted by the European Community, as converted into a rule of law directly binding on the English court. As we have said, it is at most a matter potentially relevant to the exercise of the judge’s discretion. If the claimants wished him to take it into account, they needed not only to make the submission, but also to provide the factual basis to enable him to judge whether the effect of his order would indeed be ‘prohibitive’. The defendant would also no doubt have wished to give evidence of its own position.’

Judges:

Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters made at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .

Cited by:

CitedEweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .
CitedAustin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.311764

RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 24 Jan 1985

The pursuers sought damages after the defender’s sewer collapsed, flooding their bakery.
Held: The local authority’s appeal succeeded. It was not liable. The duty of the local authority under section 2 of the Act of 1968 was not an ‘absolute duty’ as averred by RHM and that RHM’s averments of breach of statutory duty were therefore irrelevant.

Citations:

[1985] UKHL 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279753

Jalla and Others v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and Another: CA 27 Jan 2021

The issue that arises on this appeal is whether or not the appellants have a cause of action for a continuing nuisance, which would defeat the respondents’ limitation defence, or whether, as the judge found, they have a single claim in nuisance which, for many if not most of the appellants, is likely to be statute-barred.

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 63

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance, Limitation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.657384

Ough v King: CA 1967

A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor area of 156.5ft2; before the construction 100.25ft2 had been adequately lit; after the construction 80.25ft2 remained adequately lit. The adequately lit area had declined from 64.05% to 51.27%. The county court judge found that an actionable infringement had occurred.
Held: The defenedant’s appeal failed.
Danckwerts LJ referred to the ‘more demanding standards at the present time in the modern situation’.
Diplock LJ referred to the 50:50 rule as ‘a convenient rule of thumb’ in the 1920s ‘and perhaps later’.
Lord Denning MR: ‘I think the judge was entitled to have regard to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by. . . . In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may reasonably be required.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1547

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDeakins v Hookings CC 1994
(County Court) Judge Cooke considered a claim for an alleged breach of a right of light. The well-lit area in the living room was 51% of the floor area before the development, reduced to 41% afterwards.
Held: There had been an actionable . .
CitedRegan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.244242

Birmingham Development Company Ltd v Tyler: CA 24 Jul 2008

Appeal against dismissal of claim for injunction to abate nuisance.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 859, [2008] BLR 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271033

Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd; Same v London Docklands Development Board: CA 13 Oct 1995

A release of dust over neighbouring properties can be a nuisance but not a blocking of TV reception signals. No action lay in private nuisance for interference with television caused by the mere presence of a building. ‘A substantial link between the person enjoying the use and the land on which he or she is enjoying it is essential but, in my judgment, occupation of property, as a home, does confer upon the occupant a capacity to sue in private nuisance.’

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Independent 19-Oct-1995, Times 13-Oct-1995, [1996] 2 WLR 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd QBD 20-Dec-1994
The plaintiff made two claims arising from the construction works involvd in the Canary Wharf development. First that the building now prevented her TV signal reception, and second that the works had released substantial volumes of dust so as to . .
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
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 . .
CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Nuisance

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.81538

Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v Pinnacle Ltd and others: QBD 13 Jun 2008

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1386 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others TCC 13-Jun-2008
The claimants sought to restrain as a nuisance the erection of the tallest building in Europe on neighbouring land. . .
See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and Others TCC 10-Dec-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270434

Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others: TCC 13 Jun 2008

The claimants sought to restrain as a nuisance the erection of the tallest building in Europe on neighbouring land.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1386 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .
See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v Pinnacle Ltd and others QBD 13-Jun-2008
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and Others TCC 10-Dec-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270345

Dobson and others v Thames Utilities: CA 18 Mar 2008

Claim for orders re management of sewerage works – smell and mosquitoes. Leave to appeal granted.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another TCC 24-Aug-2007
The several claimants sought damages from the defendants for nuisance from mosquitoes which collected at the defendant’s sewage works. . .

Cited by:

LeaveDobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267892

Perrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others: CA 19 Dec 2007

The land owners had sought permission to fell an oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in order to prevent further damage from its roots.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The court was asked to decide whether any works to the tree could be said to be necessary if there were other possible works (not involving operations to the tree itself) which would suffice to prevent or abate the nuisance. The test under section 198(6)(b) of the 1990 Act was ‘necessary’, not ‘reasonably necessary’. But the fact that it is the stricter test of necessity (rather than the looser test of reasonable necessity) that must be applied does not lead to the conclusion that, in applying the stricter test, regard is not to be had to all the circumstances. A protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘Commonsense suggests that the task in such cases should be to identify and evaluate the various possible means of abating or preventing the nuisance – whether by doing something to the tree itself or by other works – and then to ask, in the light of that evaluation, whether it is, indeed, necessary to do something to the tree, and (if so) what.’ and ‘The better view, as it seems to me, is that Parliament intended that Section 198(6)(b) should be interpreted in a manner which gave proper weight to the word ‘necessary’. It is intended that a protected tree should remain protected unless there was a real need to lift that protection. Effect is given to that intention by reading the expression ‘so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’ as ‘if and so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance’.

Judges:

Wall LJ, Blackburne LJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] Env LR 17, [2008] 2 EG 146, [2008] BLR 137, [2008] 1 P and CR 25, [2008] 1 WLR 1307, [2008] 1 EGLR 93, [2008] JPL 809, [2008] 4 All ER 673, [2007] NPC 139, [2008] 10 EG 168, [2008] BLGR 379

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 198(6)(b), Town and Country Planning Act 1971 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPerrin and Another v Northampton Borough Council and others TCC 26-Sep-2006
The claimants sought an order under the Act to allow engineering operations to prevent nuisance from a tree subject to a tree preservation order. . .
CitedPabari v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions-And-Nilesh Pabari CA 10-Nov-2004
Housing Costs as part of child support assessment. The court considered the interpretation of the word ‘necessary’, saying that the Court must not qualify the word ‘necessary’ by reference to what might be regarded as reasonable. The word . .
CitedDelaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
CitedSmith v Oliver 1989
. .

Cited by:

CitedCardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Regina (on The Application of) v The Archbishop of Westminster and Another CA 14-Apr-2011
Parent Governors of the School disputed the appointment by the defendant of representatives to the school governors, saying that they were ineligible in that parents of current students should have been appointed in their stead if available.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land, Nuisance

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262940

Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd: CA 3 Jun 1954

The defendant’s tanker came aground, spilling fuel, for which the corporation claimed damages. The corporation appealed against rejection of that claim.
Held: In order to support an action for private nuisance the defendant must have used his own land or some other land in such a way as injuriously to affect the enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land. It was not an essential element in liability for a nuisance that it should emanate from land belonging to the defendant, although commonly it does.

Judges:

Denning, Morris LJJ

Citations:

[1954] EWCA Civ 5, (1954) 118 JP 411, [1954] 2 QB 182, [1954] 2 All ER 561, [1954] 3 WLR 200, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 446

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSouthport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd QBD 1953
An oil tanker ran aground in an estuary. The master jettisoned 400 tons of oil cargo to prevent the tanker breaking her back. The tide carried the oil slick on to a foreshore causing damage. The foreshore owners sued the shipowners in trespass, . .
CitedReynolds v Clerk 16-Jun-1725
If a man has a right to the use of a yard in common with the owner, he does not commit in trespass by entering into the yard in order to fix a water-spout to his house; but if any injury is done to the owner of the yard, in consequence of fixing . .
CitedPrior of Southwards 1498
The prior complained because the defendant, who was a glover, had made a lime pit for calf-skins so close to a stream as to pollute it.
Held: If the glover had dug the lime pit in the prior’s soil, the action ought to be in trespass: but if it . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEsso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation HL 1955
A tanker, the Inverpool, was grounded in difficult weather by its master when he feared its back was broken. Substantial volumes of oil leaked, and the local authority sought to recover the costs of the clean up. At first instance, the defence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262847

Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another: TCC 24 Aug 2007

The several claimants sought damages from the defendants for nuisance from mosquitoes which collected at the defendant’s sewage works.

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2021 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromDobson and others v Thames Utilities CA 18-Mar-2008
Claim for orders re management of sewerage works – smell and mosquitoes. Leave to appeal granted. . .
Appeal fromDobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights, Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260062

LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others: TCC 30 Sep 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2113 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedHalsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Principal judgmentLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258721

Hubbard v Pitt: CA 1976

Protesters handed out leaflets and carried posters outside the plaintiff’s estate agency. He claimed in trespass over the public footpath outside his premises. The defendants appealed the grant of an interlocutory injunction to prevent their demonstrations.
Held: The injunction was upheld. The question of rights to use the highway was irrelevant; the court was concerned only with the private law rights of the plaintiff in relation to an alleged private nuisance.
Denning MR, dissenting, said ‘The public have a right of passage over a highway: but the soil may belong to someone else. The owner of the soil may sue if a person abuses the right of passage so as to use it for some other and unreasonable purpose. Such as where a racing tout walked up and down to note the trials of the race horses: see Hickman v Maisey [1900] 1 Q.B.752. But those cases do not give Prebble and Co. A cause of action here: because Prebble and Co. do not own the pavement. It is a highway. The surface is vested in the local authority and they have not complained. Nor could they, since no wrong has been done to them or their interest.’
The courts ‘should not interfere by interlocutory injunction with the right to demonstrate and to protest any more than they interfere with the right of free speech; provided that everything is done peaceably and in good order.’ and ‘the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern . . are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess’ and that ‘history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Stamp and Orr L.JJ

Citations:

[1976] 1 QB 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
CitedBeatty v Gillbanks QBD 13-Jun-1882
The appellants assembled with others for a lawful purpose, and with no intention of carrying it out unlawfully, but with the knowledge that their assembly would be opposed, and with good reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would be . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
CitedJones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
CitedRoberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Nuisance

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.192198

O’Connor and Another v Wiltshire County Council: CA 9 May 2007

The claimants sought compensation for the diminution in the values of their properties because of noise pollution from a new highway. The defendant highway authority said that liability had been transferred to its contractors, and it had not been and was not a highway maintainable at public expense.
Held: The road had been constructed for the defendant through a consortium. The construction had however been under the authority’s powers under the 1980 Act, which did not empower the authority to avoid responsibility by contracting it out. It remained liable.

Judges:

Chadiwck LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 28-May-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 426

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973 16, Highways Act 1980 24(2) 274

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMatthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Nuisance

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251775

Eiles v London Borough of Southwark: TCC 28 Jul 2006

Quantification of claim for damages for damage from tree roots. Costs order.

Judges:

Ramset J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2014 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main judgmentEiles v London Borough of Southwark TCC 22-Jun-2006
Claim for damages – subsidence caused by tree roots. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages, Costs

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245898

Anthony and others v The Coal Authority: QBD 28 Jul 2005

The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
Held: ‘the creation of a state of affairs on land which, at the time, carries an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk of damage to one’s neighbour is not actionable in nuisance. If, however, by the improvement of knowledge, scientific or otherwise, the risk becomes foreseeable, one is under a duty to abate that state of affairs and, if one fails to fulfil the duty to abate it, then, on the occurrence of damage, the nuisance is actionable. ‘ The defendants had failed to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance once it became known, and were liable.

Judges:

Pitchford J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1654 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
CitedSedleigh-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 . .
CitedAttorney General v Cory Brothers and Co Ltd HL 1921
The defendant colliers placed waste from the mine in a huge heap. Rain cause the heap to slip, damaging nearby properties. the landslide in question was of what counsel described as an ‘enormous mass of rubbish’, some 500,000 tons of mineral waste . .
CitedRickards v Lothian PC 11-Feb-1913
The claim arose because the outflow from a wash-basin on the top floor of premises was maliciously blocked and the tap left running, with the result that damage was caused to stock on a floor below.
Held: The provision of a domestic water . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
CitedSpicer v Smee 1946
A fire resulting from a non-natural user of land (i.e. a fire to which the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies) was outside the protection of the Act, because, in such circumstances, the relevant fire was not regarded as having been started . .
CitedArscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
CitedHolbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.230952