swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Nuisance - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Parish v Judd [1960] 1 WLR 867
1960
Edmund Davies J
Nuisance
A lorry and a car it was towing stopped, obstructing the highway. The plaintiff crashed into them, and claimed that they constituted a nuisance. The vehicles had only just stopped, and the driver was checking that all was well with the car. The court was asked as to the alleged liability of the driver of the stationary car into which that carrying the plaintiff crashed, notwithstanding that the former vehicle was clearly visible 100 yards away. Held: "the mere fact that an unlighted vehicle is found at night upon a road is not sufficient to constitute a nuisance". Although the vehicle was so "found", its driver might nevertheless be exculpated if, for example, it emerged that it was only momentarily stationary and that without fault on his part.
1 Citers
Pemberton v Bright and Another [1960] 1 WLR 436
1960
CA
Nuisance
A culvert had been altered and extended in 1926 and the entrance left uncovered and unprotected. Held: The interference with the flow of water created a potential nuisance in that "heavy rain was always a potential danger unless properly controlled and this at least was a place where a grid would have stopped, or would have probably stopped, debris getting past it." Liability thus for flooding which occurred in 1956 was established.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd; 1961 - [1961] 2 All ER 145; [1961] 1 WLR 683
Dunne v North Western Gas Board [1964] 2 QB 806
1964
Nuisance
Works carried out by virtue of a statutory authority are a recognised exemption to liability under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] Ch 436
1965
ChD
Buckley J
Nuisance
The case concerned electrical interference with TV signals caused by the activities of the defendant Electricity Board. Held: Such interference did not constitute a legal nuisance, because it was interference with a purely recreational facility, as opposed to interference with the health or physical comfort or well-being of the plaintiffs. The court did not exclude the possibility that ability to receive television signals free from interference might one day be recognised as "so important a part of an ordinary householder's enjoyment of his property that such interference should be regarded as a legal nuisance, particularly, perhaps, if such interference affects only one of the available alternative programmes."
1 Citers
Goldman v Hargrave; PC 13-Jun-1966 - [1967] 1 AC 645; [1966] 3 WLR 513; [1966] 2 All ER 989; [1966] UKPC 2; [1966] UKPC 12
Mason v Levy Autoparts of England Ltd [1967] 2 QB 530
1967
McKenna J
Nuisance, Torts - Other
McKenna J said that there were not three separate routes to liability at law for the escape of fire from premises to a neighbour's property, but one. A householder was liable for the escape of his fire (ignis suus): no additional danger was needed to be proved. The liability was based on a custom of the realm and on no other principle. If the case was brought otherwise than on the custom of the realm (i.e. by action on the case) then negligence had to be proved. McKenna J said: "There were not three heads of liability at common law but only one. A person from whose land a fire escaped was held liable to his neighbour unless he could prove that it had started or spread by the act of a stranger or of God. Filliter's case had given a special meaning to the words "accidental fire" used in the statute, holding that they did not include fires due to negligence, but covered only cases of "a fire produced by mere chance, or incapable of being traced to any cause." But it does not follow, because that meaning may be given to "accidental," that the statute does not cover cases of the Rylands v Fletcher kind where the occupier is held liable for the escape though no fault is proved against him. In such cases the fire may be "produced by mere chance" or may be "incapable of being traced to any cause." Bankes LJ was making a distinction unknown to the common law, between "the mere escape of fire" (which was his first head) and its escape under Rylands v Fletcher conditions (which was his third), and was imputing an intention to the legislature of exempting from liability in the former case and not in the latter."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Ough v King [1967] 1 WLR 1547
1967
CA
Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ
Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice
A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor area of 156.5ft2; before the construction 100.25ft2 had been adequately lit; after the construction 80.25ft2 remained adequately lit. The adequately lit area had declined from 64.05% to 51.27%. The county court judge found that an actionable infringement had occurred. Held: The defenedant's appeal failed.
Danckwerts LJ referred to the "more demanding standards at the present time in the modern situation".
Diplock LJ referred to the 50:50 rule as "a convenient rule of thumb" in the 1920s "and perhaps later".
Lord Denning MR: "I think the judge was entitled to have regard to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by. . . . In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may reasonably be required."
1 Citers
Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation; CA 1967 - [1967] 1 QB 374
Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England; 1967 - [1967] 2 QB 530
Hampstead and Suburban Properties v Diomedus [1969] 1 Ch 258
1969
McGarry J
Nuisance
McGarry J said: "nuisance and annoyance will continue to be regarded by the court according to robust and commonsense standards".
1 Citers
British Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 1252; [1969] 1 WLR 959
1969
QBD
Lawton J
Nuisance
Metal foil had been blown from the defendant's factory premises on to an electricity sub-station, which in turn brought the plaintiff's machines to a halt. Held: The meaning Lawton J would give to the phrase "direct victim" was a person whose "property was injured by the operation of the laws of nature without any human intervention".
1 Citers