Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Page Motors Limited v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (1980) 78 LGR 505
1980
QBD
Balcombe J
Nuisance, Local Government, Damages
The plaintiff company were tenants of land adjoining land owned by the defendant council. Gypsies came to occupy the defendant's land over several years and in increasing numbers. The Authority had obtained a possession order but had failed to enforce it being concerned that with no proper site elsewhere to move onto further damage would be caused. The plaintiffs claimed for damages in their reduced turnover. Held: The plaintiffs succeeded. The defendants had the power and duty to provide alternative sites, and their delay of five years was unreasonable. The choice not to enforce the possession orders was from the Council's own desire to avoid disturbance elsewhere, and therefore amounted to an adoption of the nuisance. However, the drop in turnover would not necessarily reflect directly in a loss of profit, and the plaintiff's had to give credit for the associated reduction in their rating assessment.
1 Citers


 
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1980] QB 156
1980
CA
Cumming-Bruce LJ
Nuisance, Planning
The exercise of the permission to develop granted by the local planning authority may have the result that the character of the neighbourhood changes and that which would previously have been a nuisance must be held no longer to be so
Cumming-Bruce LJ said: "The planning authority has no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance save (if at all) in so far as it has statutory power to change the character of a neighbourhood."
1 Citers


 
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001; [1980] UKHL 9; [1981] 1 All ER 353; [1981] 2 WLR 188
29 Jan 1980
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies
Nuisance
An express statutory authority to construct an oil refinery carried with it the authority to refine. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Lord Wilberforce said: "It is now well settled that where Parliament by express direction or by necessary implication has authorised the construction and use of an undertaking or works, that carries with it an authority to do what is authorized with immunity from any action based on nuisance. The right of action is taken away
To this there is made the qualification, or condition, that the statutory powers are exercised without "negligence"— that word here being used in a special sense so as to require the undertaker, as a condition of obtaining immunity from action, to carry out the work and conduct the operation with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons."
Lord Edmund-Davies: When a defendant prayed in aid a necessary implication of a power, it was for him to establish that any proved nuisance was wholly unavoidable, irrespective of the expense necessarily involved in its avoidance. The absence of compensation clauses is an important indication that the statute on which reliance is placed was not intended to authorise interference with private rights, but is not determinative.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kennaway v Thompson [1980] 3 All ER 329; [1981] QB 88; [1980] EWCA Civ 1
30 Apr 1980
CA
Lawton, Waller LJJ, Sir David Cairns
Nuisance, Litigation Practice
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger [1981] 3 All ER 710
1981
CA
Eveleigh LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance
The defendant owned a Victorian house which had been converted vertically into apartments. He let them to tenants under agreements containing the usual covenant of quiet enjoyment. One of the upper storey apartments had made use of the flat roof of the apartment below as a terrace. The terrace had been laid with tiles and when walked upon caused noise which was of considerable annoyance to the tenant of the apartment below. He sued both the landlord and the neighbour. His claim was framed in nuisance. Held: The landlord's appeal failed.
Eveleigh LJ said: "Apart from the question of common law nuisance the plaintiff’s lease contains the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment that is that the tenant may use the premises without interference by the landlord of those claiming under him. The contemplated use for which the original landlord let flat 7 to the first defendant was one which interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the plaintiff’s flat. Consequently that landlord was, in my opinion, in breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The plaintiff’s enjoyment of the demised premises was unlawfully interrupted by the first defendant, a person lawfully claiming under the lessor. The plaintiff has not pleaded the case on this basis, but it is a relevant consideration when I come to consider contribution."
1 Citers


 
Solloway v Hampshire County Council (1981) 79 LGR 449; [1981] 1 WLR 1
1981
CA
Dunne LJ, Sir David Cairns
Nuisance, Local Government, Negligence
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff's house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as to the foreseeability of there being pockets of clay in the gravel upon which the damaged houses predominantly sat. Another issue concerned the question whether any operation on the trees, short of felling them, would have eliminated the risk posed by the roots if there were exceptionally dry weather and if those roots were passing through clay. At first instance, judgment was given for the plaintiffs in nuisance. Held: The council's appeal succeeded. The judge had been wrong to hold that damage to the plaintiff's house from the tree roots was a reasonably foreseeable risk. The existence of clay pockets under a house such that of the plaintiff was no more than an outside chance, and balancing that risk with the steps that would have been necessary for the defendants to have dealt with the risk, there was no breach of duty on the part of the defendant council.
Dunne LJ said: "The duty in respect of the nuisance arises if the encroachment of the roots is known, or ought to be known, to the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the tree and its maintenance, if the encroachment is such as to give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk that such encroachment will cause damage."
Sir David Cairns said: "To say that a risk of damage is reasonably foreseeable means that it is foreseeable, not merely as a theoretical possibility but as something, the chance of which occurring, is such that a reasonable man would consider it necessary to take account of it. The risk of being struck by lightning when one goes for a walk is not a reasonably foreseeable risk. I should be prepared to hold that the risk in this case was not a reasonably foreseeable risk. If, however, it could be said to be a reasonably foreseeable risk, I am satisfied that it was a risk, such that the cost and inconvenience of taking any effective steps to remove it or reduce it would be quite out of proportion to that risk. There is nothing in the evidence to show that No. 72 Shirley Avenue was any more at risk than any other house in the Avenue. Nor is there anything to show that any operation on the trees, short of felling, would have made the roots safe if there were exceptionally dry weather and if the roots of any particular tree were passing through clay".
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Coventry City Council v Doyle; QBD 1981 - [1981] 1 WLR 1325

 
 Laws v Florinplace; ChD 1981 - [1981] 1 All ER 659; [1981] CLY 2000

 
 Page Motors v Epsom Borough Council; CA 9-Jul-1981 - [1981] 80 LGR 337

 
 Greater London Council v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; 1983 - (1983) 15 HLR 57
 
Bradburn v Lindsay [1983] 2 All ER 408
1983

Judge Blackett-Ord VC
Nuisance
The plaintiffs sued the owner of the adjoining house which had deteriorated so badly it had had to be demolished. The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported. Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a semi-detached dwelling) and the judge applied the measured duty of care principle, to find her liable for damage resulting. The defendant should reasonably have appreciated the danger to the plaintiffs' property from the dry rot and from the lack of repair of the defendant's property and, because there were steps which the defendant could reasonably have taken to prevent the damage occurring, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiffs to take such steps. The judge rejected the suggestion from the defendant that the claimants could have gone onto the property and taken appropriate steps to prevent the damage themselves.
1 Citers


 
Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509; [1983] UKHL 2
24 Mar 1983
HL
Lord Templeman
Land, Nuisance
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel. Held: The riparian owners had no right to insist upon any particular water depth. Their rights were limited to the ordinary purposes of a riparian owner, such as taking water. However, the public right of navigation of the Thames had been infringed by the construction of the terminal, creating a public nuisance for which they were liable to the plaintiff. A defence of statutory authority would require the council to show that it had taken all reasonable care in the design of the terminal. It had not done so. Their liability extended also to the second jetty, since the creation of the channel also created a public navigation right over the new channel.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood; 14-Dec-1983 - [1984] 1 NZLR 525
 
Banfai v Formula Fun Centre Inc 1984 CanLII 2198; 34 CCLT 171(HCJ); [1984] OJ No 3444
13 Dec 1984

O'Leary J
Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant
Canlii Ontario - Superior Court of Justice - The defendants operated an automobile-racing amusement ride on land adjacent to the plaintiffs' motels. The plaintiffs and their customers complained of the noise emanating from the defendants' ride. The plaintiffs brought an action in nuisance against the defendants seeking damages and an injunction.
Held, there should be judgment for the plaintiffs.
The noise created by the racing cars was not in keeping with the other noises in the vicinity. Generally speaking it was considerably louder and sharper than those noises, and was pervasive, intrusive, and annoying, while the other sounds of the area generally were not. In addition, the fumes and smoke from the track were completely out of keeping with such air pollution as otherwise existed in the area. The noise from the track by itself constituted an unreasonable, undue and material interference with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. The complaints of the plaintiffs did not arise from any abnormal sensitivity or delicacies on their part. The noise from the track was such that a high percentage of normal persons would find the noise disturbing and unacceptable. It was a noise that the plaintiffs should not have to put up with, given the character of the area in which they conduct their business.
An owner of land who leases it knowing the tenant is going to use it for an automobile-racing amusement ride is liable for the nuisance created by the tenant. Although normally an owner is not liable for the nuisance committed by a tenant, where the nuisance arises "from the natural and necessary result of what the landlord authorized" or "the use from which the damage or nuisance necessarily arises was plainly contemplated by the lease", then the owner-landlord is liable.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.