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.


Hirst, Thorpe and Hutchison LJJ


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


England and Wales


AppliedSmith 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:

CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.230985