The plaintiff made two claims arising from the construction works involvd in the Canary Wharf development. First that the building now prevented her TV signal reception, and second that the works had released substantial volumes of dust so as to prevent her enjoyment of her property under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held: Interference with television reception is capable of constituting an actionable nuisance, but a right of exclusive possession of land is necessary in each case to entitle a person to sue in private nuisance. Claims were made by a wide range of people, with different interestst in land. The right to sue in private nuisance did not extend to include so wide a class of plaintiffs, but was limited to those with a right to exclusive possession of the relevant property.
Judge Havery QC
England and Wales
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 – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd; Same v London Docklands Development Board CA 13-Oct-1995
A release of dust over neighbouring properties can be a nuisance but not a blocking of TV reception signals. No action lay in private nuisance for interference with television caused by the mere presence of a building. ‘A substantial link between . .
At first Instance – 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, Torts – Other
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.81537