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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council; CA 8-Jan-2001 - Times, 08 January 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 300; [2000] EWCA Civ 299; [2001] BLR 55
Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Gazette, 01 March 2001
1 Mar 2001
CA
Nuisance
A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants. Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it escaped was not enough to create strict liability in the council responsible for the pipe. The land was being used in the ordinary course of enjoyment of the land, even though at the point of escape it was not directly from a dwelling. The pipe laid was not unusual, and the exemption from Rylands v Fletcher liability applied.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Cambridge City Council v Douglas; QBD 22-Mar-2001 - Gazette, 22 March 2001
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 421
14 May 2001
TCC
Nuisance, Land, Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Beaumont v Herefordshire Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1167
18 Jun 2001
CA
Kay, Keene LJJ
Nuisance
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for nuisance against the first and second defendants on the basis that, even if the nuisance could be proved, it occurred as a result of a statutory consent which is an absolute defence. The claimant was a riparian land owner who claimed a nuisance in the form of odorous effluent waste in a water course which ran along a short stretch of the boundary of his property. His claim was that nuisance had been caused by the first defendant and that, when they transferred the land to the second defendant, the second defendant adopted that nuisance.
[ Bailii ]
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 394; [2002] QB 929; [2001] 4 All ER 326
10 Jul 2001
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC
Land, Human Rights, Negligence, Nuisance, Utilities
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc Times, 02 August 2001; Gazette, 27 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1236
30 Jul 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J
Nuisance, Land
Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 687
19 Sep 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman
Nuisance, Environment, Utilities
The Council issued a nuisance notice in respect of sewage being deposited on a property within its area. The statutory nuisance was accepted. The issue was as to whether the sewage system was a public sewer. The judge had found that the original system had, in 1937, served only one property, and therefore had remained a private sewer. Under the 1987 Act, if it was a drain, it could not be a sewer. The authority asserted that the drain served also a roadway, which was, itself, capable of constituting a property served by the drain, and that it became a sewer on the general statutory adoption in 1937. The question was answered by asking the question of why the drain had been constructed. It had not been constructed for the roadway, but for the house, the roadway was not, in this case, a premise for the purpose of the Act, and the drain was not a public sewer.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Water Industry Act 1991 - Public Health Act 1875
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v N V Royale Belge [2002] EWCA Civ 209; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 583; [2002] Lloyd's Rep IR 589; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 767
10 Oct 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ, Hale LJ, Rix LJ
Insurance, Nuisance, Negligence, Damages
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to his failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users. His act amounted to a nuisance and a public nuisance. Could damages be recovered where the claimants had been unable to quantify their losses? However difficult that question, it was reasonable for the contractor to have taken steps to mitigate the potential loss. Held: The deposit of silt was a form of physical interference with the third parties' land.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 26 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2002] 1 AC 321; [2001] UKHL 55; [2001] 4 All ER 737; 79 Con LR 39; [2001] 3 WLR 1007; [2002] TCLR 8; [2001] 44 EGCS 150; [2002] BLGR 1; [2002] BLR 25; [2001] NPC 151
Goode v Owen and Another Gazette, 10 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2101; [2002] 1 WLR 1828
20 Dec 2001
CA
Pill, Tuckey, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Nuisance, Damages
The claimant owned land from which he took silage. It was next to land belonging to one defendant and let to the other as a golf range. The claimant sought damages for nuisance for the 1,000 golf balls a year escaping onto his land. The judge said it was nuisance, ordered the erection of a fence, and awarded damages for the loss of grazing. The defendants appealed. Held: Nuisance was established, but the fence would only protect even part of the land affected by the escape, and should not be imposed. Nor could damages be awarded for loss of grazing for the entire land when only a certain area was affected. Nevertheless damages were available, and the case was remitted to the County Court.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]