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.


Lawton, Waller LJJ, Sir David Cairns


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




England and Wales


AppliedShelfer 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 . .
DoubtedMiller 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:

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

Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189986