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: 1970 To: 1979
This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
H and N Emanuel Ltd v Greater London Council [1971] 2 All ER 835
1971
CA
Lord Denning MR
Nuisance
Notwithstanding a clause in the contract that no rubbish was to be burnt on the site, it was known to the Council that the contractor it had engaged to demolish and remove prefabricated bungalows made a practice of burning off small pieces of wood on the sites where he was engaged to demolish such buildings. The fire escaped damaged the neighbour's property. Held: The Greater London Council as successor of the London County Council was liable, as occupier, for the escape of fire negligently so caused.
Lord Denning MR considered the scope of liability at common law. He said: "After considering the cases, it is my opinion that the occupier of a house or land is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence not only of his servants, but also of his independent contractors and of his guests, and of anyone who is there with his leave or licence. The only circumstances when the occupier is not liable for the negligence is when it is the negligence of a stranger. It was so held in a case in the Year Books 570 years ago, Beaulieu v Finglam, which is well translated by Mr Fifoot in his book on the History and Sources of the Common Law. The occupier is, therefore, liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, such as the man who comes in to repair the pipes and uses a blowlamp: see Balfour v Barty-King; and of a guest who negligently drops a lighted match: see Boulcott Golf Club Inc v Engelbrecht. The occupier is liable because he is the occupier and responsible in that capacity for those who come by his leave and licence: see Sturges v Hackett. But the occupier is not liable for the escape of fire which is not due to the negligence of anyone. Sir John Holt himself said in Tuberville v Stampe that if a man is properly burning up weeds or stubble and, owing to an unforeseen wind-storm, without negligence, the fire is carried into his neighbour's ground, he is not liable. Again, if a haystack is properly built at a safe distance, and yet bursts into flames by spontaneous combustion, without negligence, the occupier is not liable. That is to be inferred from Vaughan v Menlove. So also if a fire starts without negligence owing to an unknown defect in the electric wiring: Collingwood v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd; or a spark leaps out of the fireplace without negligence: Sochacki v Sas." and
"There has been much discussion about the exact legal basis of liability for fire. The liability of the occupier can be said to be a strict liability in this sense that he is liable for the negligence not only of his servants but also of independent contractors and, indeed, of anyone except a "stranger". By the same token it can be said to be a "vicarious liability", because he is liable for the defaults of others as well as his own. It can also be said to be a liability under the principle of Rylands v Fletcher because fire is undoubtedly a dangerous thing which is likely to do damage if it escapes. But I do not think it necessary to put it into any one of these three categories. It goes back to the time when no such categories were thought of. Suffice it to say that the extent of the liability is now well defined as I have stated it. The occupier is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence of anyone other than a stranger."
1 Citers
Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough [1972] 1 All ER 260; [1972] 1 WLR 203
1972
Nuisance
It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity. Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint under s99
Public Health Act 1936 94 99
1 Citers
Dymond v Pearce [1972] 1 All ER 1142; [1972] EWCA Civ 7; [1972] 2 WLR 633; [1972] 1 QB 496; [1972] RTR 169
13 Jan 1972
CA
Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ, Stephenson LJ
Crime, Road Traffic, Nuisance
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident. Held: The appeal failed. The accident was due wholly to the negligence of the motorcyclist. 'sine qua non is not an all-sufficient basis for establishing liability.' In criminal law at least nuisance must be actual as opposed to potential.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
British Railways Board v Herrington; HL 16-Feb-1972 - [1972] AC 877; [1972] 2 WLR 537; [1971] 1 All ER 749; [1972] UKHL 1
Smith v Scott; ChD 1973 - [1973] Ch 314; [1972] 3 All ER 645; [1972] 3 WLR 783
Paxhaven Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General [1974] 2 NZLR 185
1974
Mahon J
Commonwealth, Nuisance
(New Zealand) The court considered what interest in land was required to found an action in private nuisance: "In my opinion, however, the matter is clear in principle. In an action for nuisance the defence of jus tertii is excluded, and it is no answer for the respondent to contend in the present case that the nuisance was committed on an area of land mistakenly included in the grant of lease to the appellant from its landlord. De facto possession is sufficient to give the appellant his remedy"
1 Cites
1 Citers
Nottingham City District Council v Newton [1974] 1 WLR 923 DC; [1974] 2 All ER 760
1974
QBD
Lord Widgey CJ, Ashowrth Phillips JJ
Nuisance
The tenant had obtained an order finding his house to be a nuisance, and requiring it to be made habitable. The local authority had planned a slum clearance order, and was awaiting confirmation of the order. Held: Once the magistrates found the nuisance they were obliged to make the order, but they should have looked at the surrounding circumstances to see that it was appropriayte to delay the required work to after the decision on the order.
1 Citers
Salford City Council v McNally [1975] 1 WLR 365
19 Dec 1974
QBD
Widgery LCJ, Melford Stevenson, Watkins JJ
Nuisance, Housing
cw Public Health - Nuisance - Complaint by tenant - Local authority's compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area - Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of standard adequate for time being - House statutory nuisance - whether nuisance order appropriate
The local authority compulsorily acquired a house in a clearance area under the 1957 Act. They then decided that it provided an adequate level of accommodation and postponed demolition under the 1936 Act. The tenant claimed that it was a nuisance and that by virtue of what had already occurred, the council were fixed with notice. Held: The property was unfit for habitation. The standards in the two Acts were not of a different level.
Public Health Act 1936 94(2) 99 - Housing Act 1957 48(1) 188
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bone v Seale; CA 1975 - [1975] 1 WLR 797
Motherwell v Motherwell (1976) 73 DLR (3d) 62
1976
Clement JA
Nuisance, Commonwealth
(Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court) The court recognised that not only the legal owner of property could obtain an injunction, on the ground of private nuisance, to restrain persistent harassment by unwanted telephone calls to his home, but also that the same remedy was open to his wife who had no interest in the property: "Here we have a wife harassed in the matrimonial home. She has a status, a right to live there with her husband and children. I find it absurd to say that her occupancy of the matrimonial home is insufficient to found an action in nuisance. In my opinion she is entitled to the same relief as is her husband, the brother."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 All ER 839; [1976] 1 WLR 420
Radstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council [1967] Ch 1094
1976
Nuisance
1 Cites
1 Citers
Salford City Council v McNally; HL 1976 - [1976] AC 379
Regina v Fenny Stratford Justices ex parte Watney Mann Ltd; 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 1101
National Coal Board v Thorne [1976] 1 WLR 543
2 Jan 1976
Watkins J
Nuisance
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: "Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken place affects only the person or persons occupying the premises where the nuisance is said to have taken place. A nuisance coming within the meaning of the Public Health Act 1976 must be either private or public nuisance as understood by common law."
Public Health Act 1936
1 Cites
1 Citers
Dunton v Dover District Council [1977] QB 87
1977
Griffiths J
Land, Nuisance
References to decibels in actions for noise nusance, are not helpful unless compared with everyday sounds to which others can all relate.
1 Citers
Miller v Jackson; CA 6-Apr-1977 - [1977] 1 QB 966; [1977] 3 All ER 338; [1977] EWCA Civ 6
Nor Video Services v Ontario Hydro (1978) 84 DLR 3d 221
1978
Robins J
Nuisance, Commonwealth
The court emphasised that interference with the reception of TV signals was part of the law of nuisance.
Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty; CA 31-Jul-1979 - [1980] QB 485; [1980] 1 All ER 17; [1979] EWCA Civ 5