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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Camden London Borough Council v London Underground Ltd Gazette, 07 January 2000
7 Jan 2000
QBD
Environment, Nuisance
The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.
Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 80
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council Times, 02 March 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] QB 836; [2000] EWCA Civ 51; [2000] 2 All ER 705
22 Feb 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Land, Torts - Other, Nuisance
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant's hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Held. The owner of a servient tenement was under a duty to take positive steps to provide support for a neighbour's land. There was no difference in principle between the danger caused by loss of support and any other hazard or nuisance on the Defendant's land, such as the encroachment of some obnoxious thing, which affected the Claimant's use and enjoyment of his land. Where the question was not whether the Defendant had created the nuisance but whether he had adopted or continued it, there was no reason why different principles should apply to one kind of nuisance rather than another. In each case, liability only arose if there was negligence and the duty to abate the nuisance arose from the Defendant's knowledge of the hazard which would affect his neighbour. The owner of the lower land would be liable where the condition was known, or deemed to be known, and the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Where however the damage was so extensive as not to be foreseeable, liability was not established.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
X v A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000
ChD
Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts
Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority v South West Water Limited Gazette, 08 June 2000; Times, 24 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 96
30 Mar 2000
CA
Environment, Nuisance
The term 'watercourse' did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.
Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Elliott v Agrevo UK Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 118
7 Apr 2000
TCC
Nuisance, Agriculture
The claimant sought damages in nuisance, saying that his produce was adversely affected the by the escape of herbicides from the defendant's neighbouring farm.
[ Bailii ]
Pemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark; CA 13-Apr-2000 - Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 128; [2000] 1 WLR 1672
Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council; QBD 19-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000; Times, 19 April 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 319
Hewlings v Mclean Homes East Anglia Ltd Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000
3 Aug 2000
QBD
Nuisance
The appellants had served a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance on an address from which senior officers had previously corresponded but which was not the registered office of the company. The requirement in the Act to serve the notice at the proper address was not mandatory. The intention was to provide summary relief in a form accessible to the layman. In the case of a limited company, the notice could be served upon either the company's principal or registered offices.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82
Lambie and Another v Thanet District Council; QBD 17-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc Gazette, 07 September 2000; Times, 12 October 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000
2 Nov 2000
QBD
Nuisance, Land, Environment
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Godfrey v Conwy County Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 443
13 Nov 2000
Admn
Nuisance, Crime
[ Bailii ]
Birmingham City Council v Oakley; HL 29-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 59; [2001] 1 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 1936; [2001] 1 AC 617
Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 357; (2001) EGCS 4; (2001) LGR 228; [2001] 33 HLR 56
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton
Housing, Local Government, Nuisance
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour's aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: "there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier."
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
