Category: Nuisance

Kirk and others v London Borough of Brent: CA 8 Dec 2005

The defendant council had obtained a strike out of the claimant’s assertion that they were responsible in nuisance for damages caused by tree roots.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded. While the simple nature of the trees was insufficient to establish knowledge in the council of the risks, they had been warned by letter.
Pill LJ said: ‘I do not accept the proposition . . that as a matter of law, where nuisance is created by tree roots there is no liability for resulting damage unless and until damage has been notified to the tortfeasor’.

Judges:

Pill, Wall, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1701

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .
Cited – Delaware 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238641

Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another: CA 2 Nov 2005

The defendants sought leave to appeal against an order acknowledging a drainage easement over their land. The easement of drainage was subject to a condition that it did not come to be a nuisance. It was found so to have become.
Held: The allegations of bias in the judge were not made out: ‘there was nothing in the judge’s language that could possibly be said to evidence actual bias, or to have given rise to an appearance of bias from the point of view of a fair minded and informed observer, which is the relevant legal test.’

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1463

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
Appeal against refusal on stay of order for sale of house to pay costs after loss in litigation. . .
See Also – Wallace and Another v Crossley and Another CA 24-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237500

Inglis v The Shotts Iron Co: HL 26 Jul 1882

The calcining operations of a mining company were found to have damaged the plantations belonging to a proprietor whose estate adjoined their works. It was held (aff. the judgment of the Court of Session) that the proprietor was entitled to protect himself by interdict, and that, in the whole circumstances of the case, the operations complained of should not be allowed to take place within one mile of the complainer’s lands; but ( varying the judgment of the Court of Session) that the interdict should not absolutely prohibit calcining, but should prohibit the company from calcining in the manner hitherto practised by them, or in any other way that might damage the plantations or estate of the complainer by noxious vapour.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor Selborne, Lords O’Hagan, Blackburn, and Watson

Citations:

[1882] UKHL 902, 19 SLR 902

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Nuisance

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637745

Thames 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 say that his human rights had been infringed insofar as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Whilst it would be reasonably possible to prevent flooding of the claimant’s property, protecting all similarly threatened properties would cost impractically large sums.
Held: The test for nuisance and negligence had become similar until the point where a positive act to prevent harm was required rather than acting in such a way as to avoid causing harm. There is a clear common law duty to do whatever is reasonable to prevent hazards on the land, however they might arise, from causing damage to a neighbour. The appellant provided the system of sewers for profit, and had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for them to abate the nuisance.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Aldous, And, Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 65, [2002] QB 929, [2002] 2 All ER 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 94(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands 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 – Goldman 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 . .
Cited – Leakey 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 . .
Appeal from – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 10-Jul-2001
. .
Appeal from – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd TCC 14-May-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Appeal from – Marcic 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Land, Nuisance, Human Rights, Negligence

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.167598

Goode v Owen and Another: CA 20 Dec 2001

The claimant owned land from which he took silage. It was next to land belonging to one defendant and let to the other as a golf range. The claimant sought damages for nuisance for the 1,000 golf balls a year escaping onto his land. The judge said it was nuisance, ordered the erection of a fence, and awarded damages for the loss of grazing. The defendants appealed.
Held: Nuisance was established, but the fence would only protect even part of the land affected by the escape, and should not be imposed. Nor could damages be awarded for loss of grazing for the entire land when only a certain area was affected. Nevertheless damages were available, and the case was remitted to the County Court.

Judges:

Pill, Tuckey, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2101, [2002] 1 WLR 1828

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167421

Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd: ChD 20 Jan 2005

Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any right of light had been acquired. The sky contour diagrams projected that the reductions in available light as a result of the development would be very large. In general, the percentages would be reduced to single figures from figures prior to development which were in excess of 50%.
Held: The claimant had failed to establish sufficient enjoyment of the light to establish a right. Where a Local Authority relied upon the power to override under section 237, where the land has been appropriated for a planning purpose, the proposed development, which it seeks to impose on adjoining owners must be related to the planning purposes for which the land was acquired or appropriated. The authority could not rely upon the 1990 Act to override easements. It was argued that since modern offices would always be lit artificially, older standards of light level should be disregarded. This was rejected because it took no account of possible varying uses.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 33 (Ch), Times 14-Feb-2005, [2005] 14 EG 130

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832 3, Law of Property Act 1925 62, Town and County Planning Act 1990 237

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gayford v Moffatt 1868
The enjoyment of a light or any other easement by a tenant is in law the enjoyment of the landlords. . .
Cited – Pugh v Savage CA 14-Jan-1970
The enjoyment of an easement by a succession of tenants may be sufficient to create a right by prescription for the landlord. . .
Cited – Morgan v Fear HL 1907
Two adjoining tenants held of the same landlord. One enjoyed access and use of light over the adjoing tenanted premises for a period in excess of twenty years and without interruption.
Held: An absolute right of light was acquired as against . .
Cited – Fear v Morgan CA 1906
. .
Cited – Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd HL 2-May-1904
The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction.
Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. . .
Cited – Tapling v Jones 1865
The land owner had a building with three stories. Each had a window with established rights of light. He extended the windows in the ground and first floor, and added two new stories. The neighbour built on his own land to an extent sufficient to . .
Cited – Maridive and Oil Services (SAE) and Another v CNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd CA 25-Mar-2002
The Civil Procedure Rules have allowed the Courts to accept an amendment to introduce a cause of action arising out of facts occurring subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. There is no absolute rule of law or practice which precludes an . .
Cited – Halliard Property Co Ltd v Jack Segal Ltd 1978
The court considered a proviso for re-entry that: ‘forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee is considered as a case of breach of condition.’
Held: It was clearly a condition rather than a mere covenant of the original protected tenancy that . .
Cited – Foster v Lyons and Co 1927
The lease contained a reservation which would allow the freeholder to build upon his neighbouring land whether or not it obstructed any rights of light in the demised premises.
Held: The reservation was effective to prevent a right of being . .
Cited – Willoughby v Eckstein ChD 1936
The parties were tenants of the same landlord, the Grosvenor Estate in adjoining premises at Balfour Mews in Westminster. The plaintiff claimed for an infringement of his right of light from ancient windows by his neighbour, and also that the height . .
Cited – Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wilks Head and Eve ChD 20-Dec-1996
A dispute between neighbours was settled by a deed with the following clause: ‘IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that notwithstanding that the Building Owners have placed windows in that part of their new buildings which overlook the premises . .
Cited – Regina v City of London Corporation and Another Ex Parte Mystery of the Barbers of London QBD 28-Jun-1996
The authority acquired several plots of land at different times, some compulsorily, and others pursuant to purchase notice. It granted a lease to the second respondent who built on it. In 1969 the Council granted the applicants an area of adjoining . .
Cited – Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Alwiyah Developments CA 1983
There was to be a development of six flats on land subject to a restrictive covenant. The developer began without a modification being sought. The benefit of the covenant was attached to adjoining land owned by the local authority, which they . .
Cited – Wrotham Park Settled Estates v Hertsmere Borough Council CA 12-Apr-1993
Land had been purchased under compulsory purchase powers. It had been subject to restrictive covenants in favour of neighbouring land which would have prevented the development now implemented. The question was how the compensation should be . .
Cited – Sheffield Masonic Hall Co Ltd v Sheffield Corporation 1932
In considering whether a right to light was infringed, and where a room had light from another source, which also could be potentially interfered with (but not by the Defendant), the amount and interference permitted by the Defendant is only that . .
Cited – Gafford v A H Graham and Grandco Securities Limited CA 8-Apr-1998
A land owner who was aware of his rights under a restrictive covenant, and who stood by whilst a riding school was erected in breach of the covenant, was not later to be allowed injunctive mandatory relief to enforce the covenant, by virtue of his . .
Cited – Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores HL 21-May-1997
The tenants of a unit on a large shopping centre found the business losing money, and closed it in contravention of a ‘keep open’ clause in the lease. They now appealed from a mandatory injunction requiring them to keep the store open.
Held: . .
Cited – Fishenden v Higgs and Hill Ltd CA 1935
An injunction had been refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of an easement of light and awarded damages in lieu, even though the damages would be substantial because it had been shown that the plaintiff was plainly ‘only wanting . .
Cited – Bracewell v Appleby ChD 1975
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built.
Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the . .
Cited – Kennaway 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 – Shelfer 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 . .
Cited – Jordan v Norfolk County Council ChD 25-May-1994
An order to replace trees ‘as reasonably practical’ was to include cost considerations, and it could be varied where the costs exceeded those expected. The mandatory order was varied. When considering what was meant by ‘reasonably practical’ ‘. . . .
Cited – Pugh v Howells CA 1984
The court ordered a building to be demolished were the development had been speeded up and completed over a bank holiday weekend in order to present the plaintiff with a fait-accompli, having been warned that the proposed works would infringe a . .
Cited – Cowper v Laidler ChD 1903
Buckley J said: ‘The court has affirmed over and over again that the jurisdiction to give damages where it exists is not so to be used as in fact to enable the defendant to purchase from the plaintiff against his will his legal right to the . .
Cited – Isenberg v East India House Estate Co Ltd 1863
The court refused a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to pull down part of a new building which interfered with the plaintiff’s light and exercised instead the Court of Chancery’s recently-acquired jurisdiction under the 1858 Act to order . .
Cited – St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No.2) CA 1973
When looking at a contract ‘one must construe the document according to the natural meaning of the words contained in the document as a whole, read in the light of surrounding circumstances.’
The contra preferetem rule can only come into play . .
Cited – Jaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
Recovery of damages after Refusal of Injunction
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.
Cited – Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeill Associates 1986
The claim was for interference with the plaintiff’s right to light.
Held: There is a need to approach infringements of easements of light with flexibility. The plaintiff’s subjective views as to the loss of light were not to the point. When . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regan 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

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222047

Beaumont v Herefordshire Council and Another: CA 18 Jun 2001

The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for nuisance against the first and second defendants on the basis that, even if the nuisance could be proved, it occurred as a result of a statutory consent which is an absolute defence. The claimant was a riparian land owner who claimed a nuisance in the form of odorous effluent waste in a water course which ran along a short stretch of the boundary of his property. His claim was that nuisance had been caused by the first defendant and that, when they transferred the land to the second defendant, the second defendant adopted that nuisance.

Judges:

Kay, Keene LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1167

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218220

Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc: CA 1976

The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94′ The offence was under s94 initiated by complaint under s99. Section 99 enabled an individual to bring proceedings by information in a magistrates’ court and thereby invoke against a local authority the penal provisions of section 94 and, secondly, that it was not a necessary preliminary to those proceedings that an abatement notice should be served.

Citations:

[1976] 1 All ER 839, [1976] 1 WLR 420

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Regina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham QBD 1989
The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Approved – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok HL 1990
An offence arose under the 1936 Act when a complaint was brought by an aggrieved person. A person was entitled to make a complaint under section 94 without first serving an abatement notice. . .
Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Nuisance

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.221522

Lloyds Bank plc v Guardian Assurance plc: CA 1986

The statutory control over building works provided under s.60 is capable of operating quite separately from the private law tort of nuisance.

Judges:

Sir John Arnold P and Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 35 BLR 34

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hiscox 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.266303

Thompson v Brighton Corporation: CA 1894

A manhole cover became exposed as the road surface eroded, causing injury.
Held: The Corporation were not liable.

Citations:

[1894] 1 QB 332

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.220842

Sterling 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 abatement notice referring to the transmission of noise and vibration through the structure from the nearly industrial premises which in terms read ‘Do hereby require you to abate the said nuisance within 56 days . . and for that same purpose require you to carry out such works as may be necessary to ensure that the noise and vibration does not cause prejudice to health or a nuisance, take any other steps as may be necessary for that purpose’
Held: The notice was defective. It left unspecified what works were required. The court expressed misgivings about the stringency of the law, but went on ‘As the law stands, local authorities are not, in any event, obliged to require works to be done or other steps to be taken; they can simply require the nuisance to be abated; the obligation to specify the ‘works’ and the ‘steps’ only arises if they choose to include in their notices a requirement for works to be done or steps to be taken.’

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

[1996] Env LR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – McGillivray 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kirklees 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: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.184805

Rouse v Gravelworks Ltd: CA 1940

The defendants had dug out gravel from their land, leaving a large hole adjacent to the boundary with the plaintiff’s land. Water filled the hole and caused damage to the plaintff’s land.
Held: The plaintiff’s claim failed because the damage to his land was caused by ‘natural agencies’. The decision might have differed if the water which filled the hole left by the excavation of the gravel had been brought in by pumping or perhaps even by percolation emanating from outside the defendants’ land and induced by the excavation to flow into that land.

Judges:

Slesser and Goddard LJJ

Citations:

[1940] 1 KBD 489

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Leakey 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: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.276817

Gilbert and Another (T/A Woods Farm Christmas Trees) v British Waterways Board: TCC 15 Dec 2005

The respondent was responsible for a canal which overflowed onto the claimant’s land causing damage to the claimant’s business providing christmas trees. The defendant criticised the lack of accounting records.
Held: The claimants operated under a tax scheme which left their income exempt, and so the absence of records was not sinister. The assertion by the defendants was startling. They accepted that some 13,500 trees had been lost, but that the claimant had suffered no loss. The claimants had established their losses.

Judges:

Her Honour Judge Frances Kirkham

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3094 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands 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 – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Nuisance

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.237607

Kennaway 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 nuisance, but he had refused an injunction, saying that the greater public good should prevail. The plaintiff appealed.
Held: The fact that the wrongdoer, the defendant, was in some sense a public benefactor, in this case by providing a service which was attractive to the public, has never been considered a sufficient reason to refuse an injunction. The denial of an injunction was discretionary, and should not be used to allow a wrongdoer to continue his nuisance. An injunction was granted which would restrict substantially, but not completely, the races on the water, and the damages award was reduced.

Judges:

Lawton, Waller LJJ, Sir David Cairns

Citations:

[1980] 3 All ER 329, [1981] QB 88, [1980] EWCA Civ 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Shelfer 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 . .
Doubted – Miller 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Cited – Coventry 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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189986

St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping: HL 1865

The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees.
Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was generally affected by similar factories. The defendant had acquired no right by prescription. It was necessary to distinguish nuisances damaging land, and those alleging personal injury or discomfort. In the latter case the character of the neighbourhood is relevant, but not in the former.
There is no right to discharge such fumes over neighbouring land: ‘My Lords, in matters of this description it appears to me that it is a very desirable thing to mark the difference between an action brought for a nuisance upon the ground that the alleged nuisance produces material injury to the property, and an action brought for a nuisance on the ground that the thing alleged to be a nuisance is productive of sensible personal discomfort. With regard to the latter, namely the personal inconvenience and interference with one’s enjoyment, one’s quiet, one’s personal freedom, anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves, whether that may or may not be denominated a nuisance, must undoubtedly depend greatly on the circumstances of the place where the thing complained of actually occurs. If a man lives in a town, it is necessary that he should subject himself to the consequences of those operations of trade which may be carried on in his immediate locality, which are actually necessary for trade and commerce, and also for the enjoyment of property, and for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town and of the public at large. If a man lives in a street where there are numerous shops, and a shop is opened next door to him, which is carried on in a fair and reasonable way, he has no ground for complaint, because to himself individually there may arise much discomfort from the trade carried on in that shop. But when an occupation is carried on by one person in the neighbourhood of another, and the result of that trade, or occupation, or business, is a material injury to property, then there unquestionably arises a very different consideration. I think, my Lords, that in a case of that description, the submission which is required from persons living in society to that amount of discomfort which may be necessary for the legitimate and free exercise of the trade of their neighbours, would not apply in circumstances the immediate result of which is sensible injury to the value of the property.’

Judges:

Wenlseydale, Westbury LL

Citations:

[1865] 11 HL Cas 642, [1865] UKHL J81, 11 ER 1483

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 6-Nov-1863
. .
See Also – Tipping v The St Helens Smelting Company (Limited) 26-Nov-1864
. .
See Also – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 26-Nov-1864
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Dobson 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 . .
Cited – Southwark 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 . .
Cited – Coventry 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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188029

Tate 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 riparian owners had no right to insist upon any particular water depth. Their rights were limited to the ordinary purposes of a riparian owner, such as taking water. However, the public right of navigation of the Thames had been infringed by the construction of the terminal, creating a public nuisance for which they were liable to the plaintiff. A defence of statutory authority would require the council to show that it had taken all reasonable care in the design of the terminal. It had not done so. Their liability extended also to the second jetty, since the creation of the channel also created a public navigation right over the new channel.

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1983] 2 AC 509, [1983] UKHL 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Attorney-General v Thames Conservators 1862
. .
Distinguished – Bickett v Morris 1866
. .
Distinguished – 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.
Distinguished – Booth v Ratte 1890
. .
Applied – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Applied – Dorset 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 . .
Applied – Anns 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 . .
Applied – Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
At First Instance – Tate and Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council 1981
Forbes J considered the principles to be applied when considering the award of interest on damages between the date of the loss and the judgment: ‘Despite the way in which Lord Herschell LC in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jan 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 . .
Cited – Hunter 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.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183025

Lemmon v Webb: HL 27 Nov 1894

A land-owner was free to lop off boughs from his neighbours trees to the extent that they reached over his land, and he could lop them without going on to the neighbour’s land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so.

Judges:

Lord Heschell LC, MacNaghten, Davey LL

Citations:

[1895] AC 1, [1894] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lemmon v Webb CA 1894
A neighbour could lop boughs overhanging his property without notice to the owner of the tree, provided that he could do so without entering the owner’s land. A similar right of abatement by cutting applied to encroaching roots.
Lindley LJ . .
Cited – The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson And Others 14-Nov-1823
Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s manor. Pleas, first, general issue; second, that from time immemorial there hath been and still is a public port partfy within the said manor, and also in a river which has been a public navigable . .
Cited – Fay v Prentice And Another 1845
A declaration in case stated that the defendant, being possessed of a messuage adjoining a garden of the plaintiff, erected a cornice upon his messuage, projecting over the garden, by means whereof rain-water flowed from the cornice into the garden, . .

Cited by:

Applied – Davey v Harrow Corporation CA 1957
The Plaintiff’s house was damaged by roots penetrating from trees on adjoining land. At first instance, Sellers J found that the damage was caused by the trees, but they were not proven to be the property of the defendants. On appeal and after . .
Cited – Network 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, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183043

Allen 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 that where Parliament by express direction or by necessary implication has authorised the construction and use of an undertaking or works, that carries with it an authority to do what is authorized with immunity from any action based on nuisance. The right of action is taken away
To this there is made the qualification, or condition, that the statutory powers are exercised without ‘negligence’- that word here being used in a special sense so as to require the undertaker, as a condition of obtaining immunity from action, to carry out the work and conduct the operation with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons.’
Lord Edmund-Davies: When a defendant prayed in aid a necessary implication of a power, it was for him to establish that any proved nuisance was wholly unavoidable, irrespective of the expense necessarily involved in its avoidance. The absence of compensation clauses is an important indication that the statute on which reliance is placed was not intended to authorise interference with private rights, but is not determinative.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies

Citations:

[1981] AC 1001, [1980] UKHL 9, [1981] 1 All ER 353, [1981] 2 WLR 188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands 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 . .
Appeal from – Allen 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:

Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Cited – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182123

Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 1995

The court was concerned with the refusal of the magistrates to make a compensation order after a plea of guilty to a statutory nuisance. The magistrates had also refused to award costs of the adjourned hearing at which compensation had been sought.
Held: The court declined to interfere with the refusal of the compensation, but the costs of that hearing were properly incurred. ‘Under section 82(12)…the Justices are bound to make a costs order in favour of any complainant, once it is found that a statutory nuisance existed at the date of the making of the complaint. The only limit on that is that the award is to compensate the complainant only for expenses properly incurred. That would seem to be intended to ensure that the amount to be paid by a defendant is not increased by any improper act or omission on the part of a complainant or his professional representatives . ‘

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 March 1995, [1995] 28 HLR 504

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Botross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.221520

Delaware 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 standard of reasonableness as between neighbours. Damage consisting of impairment of the load-bearing qualities of residential land was itself a nuisance. If there is a continuing nuisance of which the defendant knew or ought to have known, reasonable remedial expenditure could be recovered. The judgments in Goldman and the Wagon Mound ‘are directed to what a reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant would have done. The label nuisance or negligence is treated as of no real significance. In this field, I think, the concern of the common law lies in working out the fair and just content and incidents of a neighbour’s duty rather than affixing a label and inferring the extent of the duty from it. Even in the field of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3HL 330 strict liability the House of Lords in [Cambridge Water] has stressed the principles of reasonable user and reasonable foreseeability: see the speech of Lord Goff of Chieveley, at pp 299-301. It was the absence of reasonable foreseeability of harm of the relevant type that excluded liability in that case’.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon said that in tree root cases, the question remains whether the Defendant has acted reasonably: ‘The label nuisance or negligence is treated as of no real significance. In this field, I think, the concern of the common law lies in working out the fair and just content and incidents of a neighbour’s duty rather than affixing a label and inferring the extent of the duty from it.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2001, Gazette 22-Nov-2001, [2002] 1 AC 321, [2001] UKHL 55, [2001] 4 All ER 737, 79 Con LR 39, [2001] 3 WLR 1007, [2002] TCLR 8, [2001] 44 EGCS 150, [2002] BLGR 1, [2002] BLR 25, [2001] NPC 151

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Overseas 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 . .
Appeal from – Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster CA 21-Jul-1999
A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second . .
Cited – Leakey 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 . .
Cited – Rylands 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 – Goldman 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 . .
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing CA 28-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to recover for damages caused to their house foundations by trees growing nearby which were the responsibility of the defendants. The defendants replied that the damages was caused in part by roots from virgina creeper and . .
Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Marcic 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 . .
Cited – Moiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
Cited – Kirk and others v London Borough of Brent CA 8-Dec-2005
The defendant council had obtained a strike out of the claimant’s assertion that they were responsible in nuisance for damages caused by tree roots.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded. While the simple . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and Others TCC 25-May-2011
The claimant sought damages for subsidence to her property allegedly caused by the roots of trees on the defendants’ properties. Two large plane trees stood in the pavement outside the house and about 12 metres from it. . .
Cited – Robbins 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 . .
Cited – Network 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, Land, Negligence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166700

Jan 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 nuisance and a public nuisance. Could damages be recovered where the claimants had been unable to quantify their losses? However difficult that question, it was reasonable for the contractor to have taken steps to mitigate the potential loss.
Held: The deposit of silt was a form of physical interference with the third parties’ land. The claimant was liable in nuisance because HWT had a right to be left to use its nature reserve for breeding purposes without having to worry whether the silt, which the claimant by its negligence had put there, would interfere with their breeding programme; that worry could only be avoided either by carrying out a study, as was in fact done, and finding out that there was no need to do anything, or by dredging out the silt; the property was physically significantly affected in as much as large amounts of salt were deposited on it; and HWT suffered further damage by reason of the claimant’s activities in as much as HWT paid for the investigation.
Schiemann LJ said: ‘The underlying policy of the law is to protect a claimant against what Markesinis and Deakin in their book on Tort Law (4th ed, 1999) describe at p.422 as ‘unreasonable interference with the claimant’s interest.’ Phrases such as ‘physical damage to land’ are portmanteau phrases which embrace the concept of land being affected and this resulting in damage to the economic interests of another’.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Hale LJ, Rix LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 209, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 583, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 589, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 767

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tate 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 . .
Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – Overseas 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Shamrock CACD 1994
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Benjamin v Storr 1874
The plaintiff’s coffee house was badly affected by the defendant’s wagons standing for long periods in the narrow street outside for the purposes of loading and unloading goods. The wagons blocked his light and the frequent stabling of the horses . .
Appeal from – Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge ComC 31-Jul-2000
Contractors’ liability insurance – contract for capital dredging of main shipping channel in Southampton Water – deposit of silt outside limits of dredged channel – whether insured negligent – whether silt interfered with navigation – whether . .

Cited by:

Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Cited – Network 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.

Insurance, Nuisance, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166543

Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge: ComC 31 Jul 2000

Contractors’ liability insurance – contract for capital dredging of main shipping channel in Southampton Water – deposit of silt outside limits of dredged channel – whether insured negligent – whether silt interfered with navigation – whether insured incurred liability to third parties in negligence, nuisance or public nuisance – whether insured liable to port authority in respect of expenses incurred in removing silt – whether removal of silt by insured formed part of the contract works – whether liability excluded under terms of policy

Judges:

Mr Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Commercial 71, [2000] EWHC 227 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jan 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 . .
Cited – Network 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.

Insurance, Nuisance

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163049

Birmingham 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 and might be considered insanitary did not fall within the provision. The risk of cross infection because the water closet was placed next to the kitchen, and wash basin was in the bathroom on the other side, could not constitute a state of the premises. A broad reading of the words might include the premises. Nevertheless, considering the history of the legislation a narrow interpretation was correct. The section was directed to the presence in the house of some feature in itself prejudicial to health as a source of infection, disease, or illness. The difficulty here was not in the rooms in themselves rather but than their condition, and was outside the purpose of the section, and not a statutory nuisance.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘My Lords, on the surface, this does not look like a very momentous case. The question is whether Mr and Mrs Oakley’s landlord should have provided them with a basin in the wc. The statute which they say made it necessary to install one is ambiguous. The language is capable of bearing such a construction. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that this was what Parliament intended. So the courts have a choice. If they say that Mr and Mrs Oakley should have had a basin, landlords of old houses and flats all over the country will have to instal them. Local authorities and housing trusts will have to incur very considerable expense. Under the surface, therefore, the case raises a question of great constitutional importance. When it comes to the expenditure of large sums of public and private money, who should make the decision? If the statute is clear, then of course Parliament has already made the decision and the courts merely enforce it. But when the statute is doubtful, should judges decide? Or should they leave the decision to democratically elected councillors or members of Parliament?’ and ‘when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator of those days. The same is true of social standards. The concept of cruelty is the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights 1688 forbade the infliction of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’. But changes in social standards mean that punishments which would not have been regarded as cruel in 1688 will be so regarded today.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 59, [2001] 1 All ER 385, [2000] 3 WLR 1936, [2001] 1 AC 617

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 77 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
Appeal from – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159093

Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another: CA 21 Dec 2000

The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 357, (2001) EGCS 4, (2001) LGR 228, [2001] 33 HLR 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lippiatt and Febry v South Gloucestershire County Council CA 31-Mar-1999
The defendant had failed to remove travellers who had encamped on its land and caused nuisances against neighbouring farmers.
Held: The court refused to strike out a claim in nuisance by neighbouring land owners. It was arguable that a land . .
Cited – Southwark 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 . .
Cited – Rich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
Cited – Ayers v Hanson, Stanley and Prince 1912
. .
Cited – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Cited – Elizabeth v Rochester City Council CA 26-Apr-1993
. .
Cited – Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council CA 14-May-1998
It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the . .
Cited – Dennett v Atherton 1872
The covenant for quiet enjoyment cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose. . .
Cited – Sanderson v Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation 1884
The Corporation let a farm to Sanderson. It reserved in favour of Cairns, another tenant farmer, the rights to use a drain across one of Sanderson’s fields and to enter and repair it. Water discharged by Cairns leaked through the drain and flooded . .
Cited – Kenny v Preen 15-Oct-1962
A landlord’s threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was held to be a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court explained that ‘the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation of . .
Cited – McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth CA 1988
The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Nuisance

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147390

Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited: CA 30 Mar 2000

The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000, Times 24-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed from – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147129

Savage and Another v Fairclough and others: CA 30 Jul 1999

The defendants had applied inorganic fertiliser to their land, eventually causing pollution of the claimant’s water supply. The pollution exceeded EC levels. However the claimants had not established that the damage was foreseeable, nor that the practice of the defendant farmers was other than standard practice.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. They had not established forseeability as required in Cambridge Water.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Mummery Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2056, [1999] EWCA Civ 2056

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Directive 80/778/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Cambridge 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Environment

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146971

Denzil Williams v Jean Robertson (Wrongly Described As Robinson): CA 22 Jul 1999

The claimant had sought orders alleging a nuisance caused by his neighbour’s fir tree. He appealed a refusal of his claim which had been based upon the absence of any evidence to support it. Because of the long history of complaints between the parties, the court had also made a Grepe -v- Loam Order against the appellant.
Held: The appellant had failed to state sufficiently particularly his complaints against the order. The Grepe v Loam order acted as a filter and not as a bar. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grepe v Loam; Bulteel v Grepe CA 1887
The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146840

Watkins v Aged Merchant Seamen’s Homes: Admn 17 Apr 2018

This case is about who can bring a complaint of statutory nuisance in respect of premises. Such a claim must be, and can only be ‘made by any person on the ground that he is aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance’. (section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the 1990 Act)). The appellant claims that she fits that description and has standing to complain of statutory nuisance against the respondents. The magistrates in Sunderland decided otherwise. She appeals against that decision.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2410 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625890

L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council: CA 7 Nov 2002

The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises.
Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they grew, and therefore could be liable in negligence, and in nuisance for the damage they might cause. The highway might also be responsible, but that did not exclude the responsibility of the respondent, who had a right and a duty to maintain the roads. The basis of liability of an occupier for a nuisance on his land is not his occupation but that, by virtue of his occupation, he has it in his power to take the necessary measures to prevent the nuisance. The tree owner should be given a reasonmable opportunity to remedy the nuisance: ‘ . . What is a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance is a question of fact. ‘

Judges:

Aldous, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 427, [2002] EWCA Civ 1723

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal Dismissed – L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council TCC 11-Mar-2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Green 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 . .
Cited – Moiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178262

Lippiatt and Febry v South Gloucestershire County Council: CA 31 Mar 1999

The defendant had failed to remove travellers who had encamped on its land and caused nuisances against neighbouring farmers.
Held: The court refused to strike out a claim in nuisance by neighbouring land owners. It was arguable that a land owner can be liable for repeated acts constituting nuisance committed from its land by those it knew were in occupation, and where no steps were taken to evict them. It was its own land from which a continuing nuisance emanated.

Judges:

Evans, Mummery LJJ, Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1999, Gazette 14-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1151, [2000] QB 51, [1999] 4 All ER 149, (1999) 1 LGLR 865, [1999] 3 WLR 137, (1999) 31 HLR 1114, [1999] BLGR 562

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Page Motors v Epsom Borough Council CA 9-Jul-1981
The plaintiffs were lessees of land neighbouring that of the Council. Over several years the council’s land had been occupied by gypsies who, it was said had damaged the plaintiff’s business. Though the Council had obtained a possession order in . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Corke ChD 1933
The defendant whose land had been occupied by caravan dwellers for profit was liable in public nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and was restrained by injunction. Offending acts had been committed by the caravan dwellers, who were . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Lawrence 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146066

Holbeck Hall Hotel Limited and English Rose Hotels (Yorkshire) Limited v Scarborough Borough Council: QBD 2 Oct 1997

The occupier of land which was downhill of dominant land has the same obligation in nuisance and otherwise as the uphill neighbour. A right of support was included.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1997, [1997] EWHC QB 363

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reserved matters to – Holbeck Hall Hotel Limited (Now Known As Dawntime Limited), English Rose Hotels (Yorkshire) Limited (Formerly Imfoss Limited and Also Formerly English Rose Hotels Limited) v Scarborough Borough Council QBD 5-Dec-1997
. .
Leave to appeal – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 2-Jul-1998
Application for leave to appeal. . .

Cited by:

Reserved from – Holbeck Hall Hotel Limited (Now Known As Dawntime Limited), English Rose Hotels (Yorkshire) Limited (Formerly Imfoss Limited and Also Formerly English Rose Hotels Limited) v Scarborough Borough Council QBD 5-Dec-1997
. .
Leave sought from – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 2-Jul-1998
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Appeal from – Holbeck 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.163124

Chapman v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: CA 13 Jul 1998

The plaintiff was severely injured when a branch was broken from a tree in a high wind, and fell onto the van he was driving. The land-owner appealed a finding of liability in nuisance.
Held: The local authority were also the highway authority, and it was the defendants’ duty regularly to inspect the tree for signs of danger, and to do what was necessary to maintain the tree in a safe condition. The evidence was that the danger arose from earlier prunings. The appeal was in effect an appeal on the facts, and therefore failed.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1200

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Noble v Harrison CA 1926
A tree shed a limb onto a passer-by, causing personal injury. The Court of Appeal reversed the original finding in favour of the claimant because the defect could not have been discovered by inspection. A land-owner may become liable for a naturally . .
Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144679

Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council: CA 14 May 1998

It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances and within a reasonable time to prevent or control the nuisance, may thereby be held to have caused, continued or adopted that nuisance.
Held: Hirst LJ rejected that proposition, saying (amongst other things) that Smith v Scott was decisive authority against it: ‘Two main questions arise in connection with the claim in nuisance, using that word in its technical tortious sense, first as to its scope, and secondly as to the ambit of responsibility of landlords for their tenants’ acts of nuisance.’ The essence of the tort of nuisance was that: ‘the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s land interferes with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s land.’
A local Authority, as landlord of tenants committing gross racist acts, was not liable in nuisance or negligence to neighbours for its failure to control their behaviour even though it set out to attempt to do so.

Judges:

Hirst LJ

Citations:

Times 27-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 834, [2000] QB 1, [1999] 4 All ER 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v James 1876
A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts. . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144312

Surrey 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 authorities, it was proper for the matter to go forward for a full appeal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Otton, Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Adjourned to – 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. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Resumed from – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144478

Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand: HL 13 Jul 1869

In the absence of negligence, damage caused by operations authorised by statute is not compensatable unless the statute expressly so provides. The wording of the sections, and in particular section 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant to compensation for damage suffered as a result of the actual carrying out of, or existence of, the works to construct the railway, and not to compensation for any damage suffered as a result of the consequent use of the railway.
Lord Colonsay said: ‘[T]he right to compensation given by [section 6 of the Railways etc Act] is limited to compensation for the injury done by the construction of the railway. It contains nothing whatever as to compensation for the use to be made of the railway. That is not alluded to. If compensation had been intended to be given for an injury of this kind incident to the subsequent using of the railway . . . I should have expected something to be said with reference to it.’
Lord Chelmsford said: ‘Now, as to the words ‘by the construction thereof,’ it seems to me that it would be doing violence to language . . to extend them to any injury which is not the immediate consequence of the construction of the railway . .
To argue that, as the injury could not have occurred unless the railway had been previously constructed, therefore it was caused ‘by the construction thereof,’ is certainly a strong example of the illogical reasoning of ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc,’ and would extend to every accident or injury occurring upon the railway after its construction, which, of course, could not have happened if it had not been constructed.’

Judges:

Lord Chelmsford, Lord Colonsay

Citations:

[1869] LR 4 HL 171, [1869] UKLawRpHL 10, (1869-1870) LR 4 HL 171

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the . .
Cited – Wiltshire County Council v Crest Estates Ltd. and others CA 5-Aug-2005
The builders had agreed as part of the planning process to indemnify the council against all claims incidental to the carrying out of the works for which permission was given. The council had to compulsorily purchase land, and sought repayment from . .
Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.188030

Albert Manley, Jennifer Manley v New Forest District Council: Admn 29 Jul 1999

A house owner gained permission to run a dog kennel. It grew and eventually the authority served a notice claiming it to be a statutory nuisance because of the noise. The defendants appealed asserting they had used the ‘best practicable means’ to reduce the noise.
Held: It was not within the section to require such a business to move, although the expansion of a business was relevant.

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 752

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(g)

Nuisance

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140016

London Borough of Camden v Gunby: Admn 5 Jul 1999

Although in this particular section, the agent collecting a rack rent, was not named as being a person upon whom a nuisance notice could be served, the undefined item should be construed to be consistent with the whole series of Acts of which it formed part, and where the term was so defined.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999, Gazette 21-Jul-1999, Gazette 13-Oct-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 640, [1999] EWHC Admin 640

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(2)

Nuisance

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139904

Lisa O’Toole v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 18 May 1999

The respondent appealed by way of case stated a finding that a house was in the condition of being a statutory nuisance. They said that no evidence had been brought with regard to the health of the occupants or of any potential threat to health.
Held: The evidence of the officers was capable of supporting a finding as to the threat to health.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 451

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82

Citing:

Cited – Patel v Mehtab QBD 1980
The question was whether the premises in question were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health, being injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health. The defects included dampness. Evidence was given by a self-employed public health advisor, . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Venette Simpson Admn 3-Nov-1998
It was not necessary for environmental health officers to possess medical qualifications to express opinion as to whether or not premises were prejudicial to health as defined by section 79(1)(a) of the Act. The council appealed a finding that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139715

Hackney London Borough Council v Rottenberg: QBD 24 Jan 2007

The authority appealed the dismissal of a charge against the defendant rabbi on six counts of nuisance for noise of shouting clapping and stamping emanating from the synagogue to the annoyance of a neighbour.
Held: The court was not obliged to accept the evidence of a witness, and did not have to accept that of the unchallenged expert evidence of environmental and pollution control officers.

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice David Clarke

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2007

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.248918

Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council: Admn 28 Jan 1998

The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the date at which it was issued, and not at the later date of a magistrates’ or crown court hearing. The notice properly did not say what works were required, since the land owner might choose to abate it in several ways.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown And Mr Justice Mance

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(1)

Citing:

Appealed to – Surrey 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 – Millard 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 . .
Cited – McGillivray 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Fenny Stratford Justices ex parte Watney Mann Ltd 1976
An order had been made to abate a nuisance caused by loud noise from a juke box. The abatement notice as served required that the nuisance be abated ‘and the level of noise in [the premises] shall not exceed 70dB(A)’.
Held: The words quoted . .
Cited – Network 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 . .
Cited – Sterling 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey 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.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138213

Kirklees 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 respondents as owners of the rockface and wall and simply required them to ‘abate the statutory nuisance’. It was obvious from the abatement notice and indeed the circumstances that the only way in which this could be achieved was by (probably very extensive) works of shoring up and securing the rockface.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Mr Justice Owen And Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1997, Gazette 26-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 960

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Millard 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 . .
Cited – Whatling v Rees 1914
. .
Cited – McGillivray 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 . .
Cited – Salford City Council v McNally QBD 19-Dec-1974
cw Public Health – Nuisance – Complaint by tenant – Local authority’s compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area – Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of . .
Cited – Regina v Fenny Stratford Justices ex parte Watney Mann Ltd 1976
An order had been made to abate a nuisance caused by loud noise from a juke box. The abatement notice as served required that the nuisance be abated ‘and the level of noise in [the premises] shall not exceed 70dB(A)’.
Held: The words quoted . .
Cited – East Northamptonshire District Council v Brian Fossett 1994
The case involved an allegation of noise, a nuisance at an all night rave. No works were required to abate the nuisance and whether the 1990 Act had created any fundamental change in the law, as the Council claims, was not raised. . .
Cited – Myatt v Teignbridge District Council 1994
In a noise nuisance abatement case, the court held that for an Abatement Notice to be sufficient there are two steps: ‘one is you need to know what you have done wrong and, secondly, what it is you are to do to put it right.’ The case here was of . .
Cited – Network 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 . .
Cited – Sterling 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 . .
Cited – Budd 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:

Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137905

Guardians of the Poor of the Union of Amesbury v Justices of the Peace of the County of Wiltshire: QBD 1883

The removal of snow which obstructed the main roads of the district of a highway authority was an ‘expense incurred in the maintenance’ of the highways for the purposes of obtaining a contribution from the county under section 13.

Judges:

Cave and Day JJ

Citations:

(1883) 10 QBD 480

Statutes:

Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Goodes 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.

Nuisance

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.244700

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Mahmed Ali: Admn 28 Apr 1997

The applicant sought an order declaring the property he occupied to be a nuisance, and that his landlords must execute repairs. The authority replied that the applicant had not allowed them access in order to carry out the works (Kerr). The stipendiary magistrate dismissed the application without giving reasons. The applicant argued that Kerr applied only to one subsection, and not the one at issue. Absent reasons for the decision, the applicant was deprived of the ability to pursue his case. The applicant sought his costs. The power to order costs against a magistrate was considered. Where costs had been incurred through the failure of the magistrate to do those things properly required of him or her then costs might well be awarded.

Citations:

HC Admin 417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kerr and the Hackney Borough Council 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Newcastle Under Lyme Magistrates Court Ex Parte Massey and Others QBD 7-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on orders for payment of costs by justices who found themselves respondents to judicial review proceedings. Justices who refused consent to quash a committal and failing to appear may be subject to such orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137362

Vaughan v Menlove: 1837

Citations:

[1837] EngR 328, (1837) 7 Car and P 525, (1837) 173 ER 232 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vaughan v Menlove 1837
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff’s house. At . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.313445

Wandsworth 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 others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136156

Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster: CA 21 Jul 1999

A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second appellants in 1990 for andpound;1. . The flats were subject to long leases and the first appellant company had been formed to act as the maintenance and service company for the tenants, who owned the company. The second appellant company was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the first appellant company.
In 1989, there were reports of cracking in parts of the structure of the blocks and engineers were instructed on behalf of the first appellants. The engineers submitted a brief report and this was followed by further investigation. At a time after the second appellants had become freeholders, the appellants’ expert opinion was disclosed to the council. The engineers believed, as the judge put it, that ‘either the tree should be felled or the property should be underpinned’. The cost of remedial work if the tree had been felled was very small and, it is common ground, can be ignored for present purposes. The removal of the tree would have ended the nuisance. Thr court was asked whether the Council was liable in uisance.

Judges:

Beldam, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1903, 68 Con LR 172, (2000) 32 HLR 664, [2000] BLR 1, [1999] 46 EG 194, [1999] 3 EGLR 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Delaware 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135827

Vella v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 14 Nov 2005

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The contention that a lack of adequate sound insulation can cause premises to be in such a state as to be prejudicial to health for the purposes of s79 (1 )(a) is no longer sustainable following Everett and Oakley. The application was dismissed.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2473 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Birmingham District Council v Kelly 1985
. .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Ferrero Ltd CA 1993
The case concerned the prohibition in respect of chocolate eggs containing plastic toys one of which had been swallowed by and choked to death a small boy, and a power in the interests of public safety to prohibit the sale of particular goods, which . .
Cited – Southwark 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 . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
Cited – Network 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 . .
Cited – Birmingham 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Haringey London Borough Council v Jowett QBD 27-Apr-1999
Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest. . .
Cited – Greater London Council v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 1983
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.235204

Fay v Prentice And Another: 1845

A declaration in case stated that the defendant, being possessed of a messuage adjoining a garden of the plaintiff, erected a cornice upon his messuage, projecting over the garden, by means whereof rain-water flowed from the cornice into the garden, and damaged the same, and the plaintiff had been incommoded in the possession and enjoyment of his garden.
Held: The erection of the cornice was a nuisance from which the law would infer injury to the plaintiff ; and that he was entitled to maintain an action in respect thereof, without proof that rain had fallen between the period of the erection of the cornice and the commencement of the action: Held, also, that the declaration was not to be construed as alleging a trespass.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 79, (1845) 1 CB 828, (1845) 135 ER 769

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lemmon v Webb HL 27-Nov-1894
A land-owner was free to lop off boughs from his neighbours trees to the extent that they reached over his land, and he could lop them without going on to the neighbour’s land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so. . .
Cited – Network 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: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.303221

Pemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark: CA 13 Apr 2000

A tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser after a possession order. She made regular payments but failed to comply with the order setting terms for suspension. She sought damages from the landlord for nuisance for not dealing with an infestation of cockroaches. The landlord authority asserted that she had insufficient interest to found a claim. She was not a tenant.
Held: Her continued occupation with the implicit consent of the authority, ‘the peculiar status of a ‘tolerated trespasser”, was sufficient to make her an occupier able to claim in nuisance.

Judges:

Roch LJ, Clarke LJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 128, [2000] 1 WLR 1672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – Willis and Another v Derwentside District Council ChD 10-Apr-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging the escape of noxious CO2 gas from the defendant’s neighbouring land. The gas originated from old coal workings.
Held: There had come to be a liability falling in the defendant from 2006. Its delay in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84643

Haringey London Borough Council v Jowett: QBD 27 Apr 1999

Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 365, [1999] 32 HLR 308

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Cited by:

Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81241

Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council: QBD 19 Apr 2000

A smoke nuisance can be established on the basis of the smell of smoke alone. It was not necessary to establish the presence of visible smoke. Smoke primarily means visible smoke, but even in common parlance can include the smell. The statutory definition included soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. The smell related to the detection of smoke which constituted the offence.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000, Times 19-Apr-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 319

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81047

Cunningham v Birmingham City Council: Admn 6 May 1997

The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural problems. She said that the kitchen was, in view of his condition too small and dangerous in its layout.
Held: Whether premises are ‘prejudicial to health’ is an objective not a subjective test; there is no contrast with the test for nuisance. The magistrate had been wrong to determine the case in the way he did by relating the respondents’ duties to the particular health requirements of Robert, the son of the the appellant.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Astill J

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 440

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
Cited – National Coal Board v Thorne 2-Jan-1976
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken . .
Cited – Hall v The Manchester Corporation 1915
Lord Parker set out the test which to be applied when considering whether a property was fit for human habitation: ‘I desire to add that if the corporation are minded to make a new order under section 41 dealing with the houses in question, they . .
Cited – Morgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79709

Camden London Borough Council v London Underground Ltd: QBD 7 Jan 2000

The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78852

Bybrook 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, since following earlier cases, and an extension of the law of nuisance to that of negligence, the owner of a riparian property took the risk of flooding as a natural consequence of owning such land. Although the culvert taking the dyke under Cemetery Lane when originally constructed caused some interference with the flows when it was constructed, ‘that evidence. . . does not in my judgment demonstrate that the culvert then gave rise to a nuisance. In my judgment the evidence as to flooding, both positive and negative, shows that when constructed the culvert was of adequate capacity to carry the natural flow of water within the dyke; and that the flooding in 1993 and 1996 and the continuing risk of flooding of the site agreed by the experts . . . are the result of changes within the catchment area.’

Judges:

Robert Owen QC

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999

Citing:

applied – Radstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78790

Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence: CA 16 Jun 1998

Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants from the order of the trial judge (Carnwath J) awarding the plaintiffs damages for the breach of duty imposed by section 7(1)(a) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 on the licensee of a nuclear site to ensure that no occurrence involving nuclear matter caused damage to any property of any person other than the licensee. Damage within the Act occurred if there was some alteration in the physical characteristics of the land caused by radioactive properties which rendered it less useful or less valuable. Aldous LJ said that the addition of plutonium to the topsoil rendered the characteristics of the marshland different and, further, that the result of the addition was that the marshland became less useful and less valuable. The plaintiffs’ land was less valuable because the estate was unsaleable until the contaminated soil had been removed and less useful because the level of contamination was such that the topsoil of the marsh had to be excavated and removed from the site because the level of radioactivity exceeded that which was allowed by the regulations. In short, the cause of action arose because the amenity or utility of the plaintiffs’ land was impaired by contamination from the plutonium.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Aldous, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .
Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Network 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.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78452

West Leigh Colliery Company Limited v Tunnicliffe and Hampson Limited: HL 1908

The court considered the issue of surface subsidence as a nuisance owing to the working of minerals under or adjoining his property.
Held: depreciation in the market value of the property attributable to the risk of future subsidence cannot be taken into account. To recover damages the surface owner is obliged to wait until the damage or injury caused by subsidence has happened.

Citations:

[1908] AC 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Network 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 May 2022; Ref: scu.619259

Dwyer v Mansfield: 1946

The plaintiff shopkeepers complained of obstructions caused by customers queuing outside the defendant’s vegetable shop. He was selling rationed vegetables in the quantities licensed. The judge had found that neither nuisance, nor damage had been established.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant was carrying out an essential public service in an appropriate normal and proper manner. Even if nuisance had been established, a complaint would not lie unless he could be shown to have behaved in some excessive or unreasonable manner. The queues were caused by the shortage of potatoes.

Citations:

[1946] KB 437, [1946] 2 All ER 247, [1947] LJR 894, 175 LT 61, 62 TLR 401, 90 Sol Jo 443

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621479

Laws v Florinplace Ltd: 1981

A large shop sign was erected advertising a ‘Sex Centre and Cinema Club’, the premises of which opened a few days later. Signs were put in the shop window, one of which advertised ‘Uncensored adult videos for sale or available’ and others of which gave a warning that the premises showed explicit sex acts. The adjoining property owner sought an interlocutory injunction.
Held: The court granted the interlocutory injunction to restrain until trial, the business of the shop, the shop signs and other forms of advertisement. There was a triable issue whether the existence of a business of the kind in question, conducted in the way in which it was conducted, so that the nature of the business was evident to the nearby residents and their visitors, was a nuisance. It was sufficiently arguable that the knowledge by occupants of the plaintiffs’ properties of the use of the defendant’s premises was a material interference with the comfortable enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ properties.

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 659

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thompson-Schwab v Costaki CA 1956
The sight of prostitutes entering and leaving the defendant’s premises was so offensive as to be actionable in nuisance by a neighbouring owner. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Network 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 May 2022; Ref: scu.619260

Baten’s Case: 1610

Citations:

(1610) 9 Co Rep 53b

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Network 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 May 2022; Ref: scu.619258

Munro v Southern Dairies: 18 Apr 1955

(Victoria) Nuisance – Horses kept on dairy premises without proper stabling – Interference with use and enjoyment of neighbouring premises – Loss of sleep by neighbouring occupier as a result thereof – Whether reasonable’ use of the premises or public benefit are defences – Whether a trade essential to the locality can be complained of – Extent to which evidence of economic necessity for delivery of milk by horse – drawn vehicles is relevant – Jurisdiction to refuse injunction – on undertaking by defendant to erect proper stables.
Sholl J said: ‘If a man chooses to make his home in the heart of a coalfield or in a manufacturing district, he can expect no more freedom from the discomfort usually associated with such a place than any other resident can.’ but granted an injunction: ‘To restrain the defendant, by its directors, servants and agents, from causing or permitting on the premises at Grenville Street and Whylis Street, Hampton, on which it now conducts its business, any nuisance (whether by way of smell, noise or flies . . )’

Judges:

Sholl J

Citations:

[1955] VLR 332, [1955] ALR 793, [1955] VicLawRp 60

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

Cited – Coventry 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.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.536799

Fleming v Hislop: HL 1886

Lord Halsbury LC said that ‘whether the man went to the nuisance or the nuisance came to the man, the rights are the same’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

(1886) LR 11 App Cas 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coventry 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.536797

Almeroth v WE Chivers and Son Ltd: CA 1948

The plaintiff peddler had his barrow by one kerb. He crossed the road to serve a customer, but on return when crossing the kerb from a roadway tripped over a small pile of slates and was injured. The slates did not overlap the kerb. They had been left there for collection as part of the clearance of war damaged buildings.
Held: The slates were a nuisance, even though they made no substantial obstruction.
The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The slates ‘might easily not be noticed by a reasonably careful person crossing the road as the plaintiff did’, talking to someone. Somervell LJ said that a person walking along a pavement does not have to keep ‘his eyes on the ground to see whether or not there is any obstacle in his path’.
The ordinary principles of causation in tort are applicable to an action in nuisance. The obstacle was capable of being a nuisance despite its small size.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 All ER 53, 92 Sol Jo 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.517227

Leeds v Shakerley: 1599

In an action for diverting a water-course from one of three mills, on not guilty, the ven. Fac. shall be where the nuisance was done, sed aliter on a prescription; but a seisin of the mill at the time of the nuisance must be shewn.

Citations:

[1653] EngR 1212, (1599) Cro Eliz 751, (1653) 78 ER 983 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Coventry 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.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.413519

Regina v Lister and Biggs: 1856

The defendants were indicted with knowingly depositing in their warehouse, which was close to public streets, excessive quantities of a dangerous ignitable and explosive fluid called wood naptha. The assertion was that, as a result, the neighbouring and passing public was in great danger of their lives and property and kept in great alarm and terror: if there were to be a fire in the warehouse, it could not be quenched and would produce disastrous consequences in the neighbourhood. The defendants were convicted.
Held: The indictment was upheld.
It was argued on behalf of the defendants that naptha was not self-inflammatory, that it was maintained with care, that it was not therefore dangerous and that the alarm of the public was not of itself sufficient to prove an indictable offence in nuisance. The fears of mankind, though they might be reasonable ones, would not create a nuisance, and he refused an injunction. The point being made was that the naptha in the warehouse did not represent an actual danger to the public. The argument was rejected.
Lord Campbell CJ said: ‘The law of this country would surely be very defective if life and property could be so exposed to danger by the act of another with impunity. There is no ground for saying that, according to the doctrine contended for by the prosecutor’s counsel, neither brandy nor wine, nor oil, nor any ignitable substance, could be kept in the cellar of a town house without the owner of the house being liable to imprisonment. The substance must be of such a nature and kept in such large quantities, and under such local circumstances, as to create real danger to life and property. The well founded apprehension of danger which would alarm men of steady nerves and reasonable courage, passing through the street in which the house stands, or residing in adjoining houses, is enough to show that something has been done which the law ought to prevent by pronouncing it to be a misdemeanour. Accordingly, to manufacture, or to keep in large quantities, in towns or closely inhabited places, gunpowder (which for this purpose cannot be distinguished from naptha) is by the common law of England a nuisance and an indictable offence. . . it is a question of fact for the jury whether the keeping and depositing, or the manufacturing of such substances, really does create danger to life and property as alleged – and this must be a question of degree, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. No general rule of law can be laid down beyond this, that the substantial allegations in the indictment must be substantially proved. In the present case we think that sufficient, although not necessarily conclusive, evidence was adduced, and that although the Judge would not have been justified in directing a verdict of guilty to be entered without taking the opinion of the jury upon it, he was fully justified in telling the jury (which he appears to have done) that if the depositing and keeping the naptha in the manner described, coupled with its liability to ignition ab extra, created danger to life and property to the degree alleged, they might find a verdict of guilty. Whether the liability to ignition ab extra could properly be taken into consideration by the jury, he reserved for our opinion, and we answer – Yes. The conviction must therefore be affirmed.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

[1856] EngR 30, (1856-1857) Dears and B 209, (1856) 169 ER 979

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.290785

Barker v Herbert: CA 1911

The Defendant owned a house near the highway. A rail in a nearby fence of the area railing had been broken away by some boys, and there was therefore a gap in the railings. A child climbed through fell into an open area, injuring himself. The Defendant did not live in the house, and knew nothing of the the removal of the rail which had happened only three days before the accident. The case in nuisance was dismissed on the facts by the jury.
Held: The appeal failed. Vaughan Williams LJ analysed the case of Saxby and said that the effect of each judgment would say that to impose liability upon the possessor of land in such a case, there must be either the creation of a nuisance by him or a continuance by him of a nuisance.
Fletcher Moulton LJ said that: ‘In a case where the nuisance is created by the act of a trespasser, it is done without the permission of the owner and against his will, and he cannot in any sense be said to have caused the nuisance; but the law recognizes that there may be a continuance by him of the nuisance. In that case the gravamen is the continuance of the nuisance, and not the original causing of it. An owner of premises may have a duty to prevent the continuance of the nuisance, but it is obvious that, just as where the allegation is that he has caused the nuisance it must be proved that it was there by his act or that of some one for whose action he is responsible, so, where it is alleged that he is responsible for the continuance of the nuisance it must be proved that it was continued by his permission. He cannot be said to have permitted the continuance of that of which he had no knowledge.’
The knowledge of servants and agents for whom the owner is responsible must be attributed to him, and that cases might arise in which his or their want of knowledge may be due to neglect of duty.

Judges:

Vaughan Williams LJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ and Farwell LJ

Citations:

(1911) 2 KBD 633

Citing:

Cited – Saxby v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co 1869
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had diverted a water course causing them damage. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Leakey 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276815

Trevetts v Lee: CA 1955

Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The law as regards obstruction to highways is conveniently stated in a passage in Salmond on Torts, 13th edition: ‘A nuisance to a highway consists either in obstructing it or in rendering it dangerous’. Then a numbed of examples are given which seem to me to show that prima facie at any rate when you put an obstruction to a highway you mean something which permanently or temporarily removes the whole or part of the highway from the public use altogether.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 113, [1955] 1 All ER 406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dymond 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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.265919

Rex v Bell: 1822

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

Citations:

(1822) 1 LJKB (OS) 42

Cited by:

Applied – Radstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220839

Moore 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.

Citations:

(1886) 17 QBD 46

Cited by:

Approved – Great 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220840

Dear v Thames Water and Others: 1992

Citations:

(1992) 33 Con LR 43

Citing:

Distinguished – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220843

Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co and London and St Katharine Dock Co: 1887

Damages in nuisance are not to be increased by any subdivision of interests.

Judges:

Cotton LJ

Citations:

(1887) 36 Ch D 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Network 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, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195595

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki: CA 1956

The sight of prostitutes entering and leaving the defendant’s premises was so offensive as to be actionable in nuisance by a neighbouring owner.

Citations:

[1956] 1 All ER 652, [1956] 1 WLR 335

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Laws v Florinplace ChD 1981
The defendants purchased a shop in a residential area and used it as a sex shop. Residents claimed in nuisance, and sought an injunction.
Held: The claim raised an arguable cause of action, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the . .
Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Laws v Florinplace Ltd 1981
A large shop sign was erected advertising a ‘Sex Centre and Cinema Club’, the premises of which opened a few days later. Signs were put in the shop window, one of which advertised ‘Uncensored adult videos for sale or available’ and others of which . .
Cited – Network 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190581

Davey v Harrow Corporation: CA 1957

The Plaintiff’s house was damaged by roots penetrating from trees on adjoining land. At first instance, Sellers J found that the damage was caused by the trees, but they were not proven to be the property of the defendants. On appeal and after further evidence it was found that the trees had been growing for some time on the defendants land.
Held: The defendants were liable in nuisance for damage caused by encroaching roots whether self sown or planted. Where a boundary hedge is delineated on an Ordnance Survey map by a line, the line indicates the centre of the existing hedge. This accords with the practice of the OS and courts can take notice of that practice as prima facie evidence of what a line on a map indicates. ‘After that Fisher -v- Winch and this, courts in future can take notice of this practice of the Ordnance Survey (that the boundary line on the map indicated the centre of the existing hedge) as at least prima facie evidence of what a line on the map indicates.’ As to damage by roots: ‘once it is established that encroachment by roots is a nuisance, it must follow that if damage is thereby caused, an action on the case will lie.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1957] 2 WLR 941, [1957] 2 All ER 305, [1958] 1 QB 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Fisher v Winch CA 1939
The land of both parties had been in common ownership. The first plot to be conveyed was sold by a conveyance which set out by reference to the numbers on an Ordnance map the different parcels with their description and acreage. The second . .
Applied – Lemmon v Webb HL 27-Nov-1894
A land-owner was free to lop off boughs from his neighbours trees to the extent that they reached over his land, and he could lop them without going on to the neighbour’s land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so. . .
Questioned – Giles v Walker 1890
. .
Explained – James Dressel v Partnership Housing Ltd EAT 19-Mar-2003
EAT The appellant challenged the decision of the tribunal in that the chairman had sat alone despite the existence of a condition under s5 requiring him to consider acting with a panel.
Held: The chairman . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .
Cited – Leakey 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 . .
Cited – Network 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, Land

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183042

Turberville v Stamp: 1792

The defendant’s haystack spontaneously combusted and it was alleged that he had ‘wrongfully negligently and improperly kept his haystack so that it became liable to ignite’ and so be a danger to the claimant’s property. The jury were left to consider the question of negligence.
Held: The direction was upheld as the ‘common custom of the realm’. Tindal CJ said: ‘But there is a rule of law which says you must so employ your own property as not to injure that of another; and according to that rule the defendant is liable for the consequences of its own neglect; and though the defendant did not himself light the fire yet mediately, he is as much the cause of it as if he had himself put a candle to the rick; for it is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked.’

Citations:

(1792) 12 Mod 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Turberville v Stamp In BR 1792
An action on the case, founded upon the general custom of the realm, against the defendant, for negligently keeping his fire; and the plaintiff declared that the defendant in his close did light up a fire to burn the stubble, and ignem suum tam . .
See Also – Turberville v Stampe 1792
Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. acc. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the Act of God. A master is responsible for all acts dons by his servant in the . .
See Also – Turberville v Stamp 1796
Action upon the case on the custom of the realm, for negligently keeping of his fire; declaring that the plaintiff was possessed of a close of heath ; that the defendant possessed of another close next adjoining ; and that the defendant tam . .
Cited – Stannard (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: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.512020

Jordeson v Sutton, Southcotes and Drypool Gas Co: 1899

The defendants owned land adjacent to that of the plaintiff’s. Both plots were buillt over a deep substratum of wet sand, known as ‘running silt’. The defendants, in order to continue a development, drained the running silt under their own land, but this in turn led to subsidence in the plaintiff’s land as the silt collapsed. By statute the defendant was protected from liability in nuisance.
Held: The withdrawal of the support by draining the silt was a nuisance actionable at law, and the Act did not protect the defendant in these circumstances.

Citations:

[1899] 2 Ch 217

Statutes:

Gas Works Clauses Act 1871 9

Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463638

Page Motors Limited v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council: QBD 1980

The plaintiff company were tenants of land adjoining land owned by the defendant council. Gypsies came to occupy the defendant’s land over several years and in increasing numbers. The Authority had obtained a possession order but had failed to enforce it being concerned that with no proper site elsewhere to move onto further damage would be caused. The plaintiffs claimed for damages in their reduced turnover.
Held: The plaintiffs succeeded. The defendants had the power and duty to provide alternative sites, and their delay of five years was unreasonable. The choice not to enforce the possession orders was from the Council’s own desire to avoid disturbance elsewhere, and therefore amounted to an adoption of the nuisance. However, the drop in turnover would not necessarily reflect directly in a loss of profit, and the plaintiff’s had to give credit for the associated reduction in their rating assessment.

Judges:

Balcombe J

Citations:

(1980) 78 LGR 505

Cited by:

Appeal from – Page Motors v Epsom Borough Council CA 9-Jul-1981
The plaintiffs were lessees of land neighbouring that of the Council. Over several years the council’s land had been occupied by gypsies who, it was said had damaged the plaintiff’s business. Though the Council had obtained a possession order in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Local Government, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.445030

Smith v Wilson: 1905

Citations:

(1903) 2 IR 45

Cited by:

Cited – Lyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420760

Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Co: 1930

The plaintiff complained in nuisance that the access to his home had been obstructed by people seeking to use the defendant hotel.
Held: The claim failed. If it was established that the defendant ‘has interfered substantially with the reasonable access to the plaintiff’s house’ the plaintiff would have satisfied the necessary conditions to enable him to maintain the action; in those circumstances he would have ‘sustained an injury affecting him particularly, in a manner beyond that which other members of the public are in fact affected’.
Luxmore J said: ‘It is necessary to determine whether the act complained of is an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living but according to plain and sober and simple notions among English people.’

Judges:

Luxmore J

Citations:

[1930] 1 Ch 138

Citing:

Cited – Lyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420761

Armstrong 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 suffering no inconvenience, on discovering his ownership, the plaintiff requested the removal of the sewer and its manhole, and an associated injunction. The judge at trial found a trespass, but gave only nominal damages and refused an injunction.
Held: The plaintiff was not debarred from objecting when his acquiescence arose through ignorance. However the trespass was trivial, and no injunction was granted.
As to the cross appeal, though the trespass was forgiven by the consent, that could not answer the claim as to the continuing discharge since that would amount to an easement which would require a formal grant.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘it is true to say that if a man, having a proprietary right, proves an infringement of that right, prima facie he is entitled to an injunction: but that needs some qualification. It is not a matter of unqualified right; and one ground for denying an injunction would be that the wrong done is, in the circumstances, trivial. That proposition is founded on the well-known case of Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. (Directors) v. Broadbent . . The judge was here dealing with the claim as I have formulated it: and he came to the conclusion that the circumstances of this case were special, and, as his judgment shows, that the damage was trivial . . But there were other good grounds, and formidable grounds (as I think) for refusing the plaintiff an injunction. That he misled the defendants is beyond a peradventure. It is no less clear that he attempted to mislead the court. He asserted – contrary to the fact – that he had never had any conversation with the defendants about the matter at all; and in his evidence in chief he so swore, untruly. It is not, therefore, surprising that the judge came to the conclusion that he should grant no equitable relief; and in my judgment, on the facts of this case, he was well entitled to take that view.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1959] 2 QB 384, [1959] 2 All ER 651, [1959] 3 WLR 84, (1959) 123 JP 401, (1959) Sol Jo 508

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pelling v Families Need Fathers Ltd CA 1-Aug-2001
The claimant, a member of the company, a charitable company limited by guarantee, sought a list of the company’s members. This was refused, and the court used a discretion not to order the list to be produced. The applicant sought to lead a group . .
Cited – St Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Equity, Nuisance, Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.278877

Paterson and Another v Humberside County Council: QBD 19 Apr 1995

A local authority was liable for nuisance for damage (cracks to house) caused by tree roots once it could be shown that it knew of the soil condition, by virtue of the council’s own warnings to residents of the danger in the area meant that the damage was foreseeable. The council was not liable for breach of statutory under the 1980 Act since it had not planted the trees.
The test of foreseeability was whether the risk was one which a reasonable person in the Defendant’s position would have regarded as a real risk as distinct from a risk which he would have been justified in disregarding and taking no steps to eliminate

Judges:

Mr Toulson QC

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-1995, [1995] CLY 3661, [1996] Const LJ 64

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 96

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Banque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-1995
The plaintiffs were mortgagees. The defendants were valuers. The defendants negligently over-valued properties and the plaintiffs then accepted mortgages of the properties. Later the property market collapsed and the various borrowers defaulted and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing CA 28-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to recover for damages caused to their house foundations by trees growing nearby which were the responsibility of the defendants. The defendants replied that the damages was caused in part by roots from virgina creeper and . .
Cited – Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and Others TCC 25-May-2011
The claimant sought damages for subsidence to her property allegedly caused by the roots of trees on the defendants’ properties. Two large plane trees stood in the pavement outside the house and about 12 metres from it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence, Local Government

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84608

Price v Hilditch: 1930

The erection of a high boundary wall was established to be a nuisance. Maugham J: ‘A ground plan put in by one of the expert witnesses for the plaintiff shows the amount of floor space to which the light of the sky has access, calculated from the point of view of a table 2 feet 8 inches high, and the fact now is that there is hardly any part of the floor in the scullery from which the sky can be seen, whereas, before the erection of the wall, the sky could be seen from practically the whole of that small room.’

Judges:

Maugham J

Citations:

[1930] 1 Ch 500

Cited by:

Cited – Regan 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

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244241

Attorney-General v Scott: 1905

A highway authority should ‘maintain the road according to an up-to-date standard.’

Judges:

Jelf J

Citations:

[1905] 2 KB 160

Cited by:

Cited – Goodes 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.

Nuisance

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244702

Hussain v Lancaster City Council: CA 1999

The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, racial abuse, the throwing of missiles and attempts to burn down their premises. They alleged that ‘the harassment comes from a number of identifiable people both men, including teenagers and boys, and women’. Some individuals had been prosecuted, and a total number of 106 was involved.
Held: The claim failed. The acts complained of ‘did not involve the tenant’s use of the tenant’s land and therefore fell outside the scope of the tort’. A lessor was not liable to a lessee’s neighbour, who was not a lessee of the appellant, for a nuisance created by the lessee, unless the lessor authorized the nuisance either expressly or the nuisance was certain to result from the purposes for which the property was let. It would not be fair, just and reasonable to hold a Council negligent in the exercise of its discretionary statutory powers under housing legislation.

Judges:

Hirst, Thorpe and Hutchison LJJ

Citations:

[1999] 4 ALL ER 125, [2000] 1 QB 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

Cited – LMS 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.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.230985

Regina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham: QBD 1989

The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a criminal sentence. ‘On analysis, the position seem to be that proceedings are initiated by information under section 99, and that the information is then dealt with under section 94(2). It appears plain that the proceedinbgs under section 94(2) are criminal in character. The offence is the wrongdoing which leads to whatever order is in fact made; in this case, putting it generally, allowing premises to be in such a state as to be prejudicial to health.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 408

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 9492), Legal Aid Act 1974 28(5)

Citing:

Followed – Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc CA 1976
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94’ The offence was under s94 . .

Cited by:

Applied – Herbert v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 27-Nov-1991
An abatement order had been made against the council under the 1936 Act. The tenant appealed a finding that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to award compensation under the 1973 Act.
Held: An order under the 1973 Act required a criminal . .
Adopted – Botross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.221517

Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough: 1972

It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity.
Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint under s99

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 260, [1972] 1 WLR 203

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.221521

Allan v The Overseers of Liverpool: 1874

The plaintiff (or joint plaintiffs) must be enjoying or asserting exclusive possession of the land to assert a claim in nuisance.

Judges:

Blacknurn J

Citations:

(1874) LR 9 QB 180

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195596

Moss v Christchurch Rural District Council: 1925

Damage caused to a house may result in an award of the diminution of the value of the house only.

Citations:

[1925] 2 KB 750

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Philips v Ward CA 1956
The Plaintiff had relied on a negligent survey to purchase a substantial Elizabethan property and land. The report did not mention that the timbers of the house were badly affected by death watch beetle and worm so that the only course left to him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195604

Paxhaven 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 answer for the respondent to contend in the present case that the nuisance was committed on an area of land mistakenly included in the grant of lease to the appellant from its landlord. De facto possession is sufficient to give the appellant his remedy’

Judges:

Mahon J

Citations:

[1974] 2 NZLR 185

Citing:

Applied – 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, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195591