The claimant appealed against dismissal of its claim in nuisance. The parties occupied adjoining units on an industrial estate. The defendant’s business generated odour which, the wall between them being permeable, passed into the claimant’s office environment.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge had correctly summarised and applied the relevant law. In particular he had not misapplied the decision in Southwark v Mills. The root of the problem lay not with the defendant’s activities, which fell within the user covenant, but with the wall. The findings were open to him, and an appellate court could not second guess factual conclusions drawn by the judge after a site visit.
Mummery, Munby LJJ, Hedley J
[2011] EWCA Civ 987, [2011] Env LR 34, [2011] NPC 94
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – 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 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: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442716
