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