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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Johnson v BJW Property Developments Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 574; [2002] EWHC 1131 (TCC)
2002
Thornton QC J
Nuisance
1 Citers
McKenna and Others v British Aluminum Ltd Times, 25 April 2002
16 Jan 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Neuberger
Nuisance, Human Rights
Claimants began an action in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher against the respondents. They sought to strike out the claim on the basis that some of the claimants did not have a sufficient interest in the land affected. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was an extension of the law of nuisance. Held: On an interlocutory basis it was probable that the law of nuisance did apply, requiring the claimant's to have an interest in land, but in the light of the extension of Human Rights law to common law, the claim could not be described as having no prospect of success, and the strike out request failed.
1 Cites
Thames Water Utilities Limited v Peter Marcic Times, 14 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 65; [2002] QB 929; [2002] 2 All ER 55
7 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Aldous, And, Lord Justice Ward
Utilities, Land, Nuisance, Human Rights, Negligence
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant's sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to say that his human rights had been infringed insofar as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Whilst it would be reasonably possible to prevent flooding of the claimant's property, protecting all similarly threatened properties would cost impractically large sums. Held: The test for nuisance and negligence had become similar until the point where a positive act to prevent harm was required rather than acting in such a way as to avoid causing harm. There is a clear common law duty to do whatever is reasonable to prevent hazards on the land, however they might arise, from causing damage to a neighbour. The appellant provided the system of sewers for profit, and had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for them to abate the nuisance.
Water Industry Act 1991 94(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and another v Sherwood and another Gazette, 27 February 2002; Times, 04 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 229
18 Feb 2002
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Longmore LLJ
Local Government, Licensing, Nuisance, Estoppel
The applicants had constructed kiosks on the highway with permission from the local authority under the 1990 Act. They also had licences under the 1980 act to operate as street traders. The authority later complained that the sales from the structures were not street sales, and the licences were not valid. Held: The licensing system was intended to supplement the law of nuisance, by proscribing street trading falling short of nuisance. Trading from such structures was not street trading, and was not regulated under the 1990 Act. It was not appropriate to decide the question of whether an offence had occurred, by looking at tiny questions of when in time the sales took place. There was no promise to be implied allowing the traders a licence, or that they should be granted a lease. Nevertheless, there was an estoppel against the local authority which had represented that a licence would continue for 22 years, and it would be held to it.
London Local Authorities Act 1990 21(1) - Highways Act 1980 Part VIIA
[ Bailii ]
Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] 3 NZLR 308; [2002] BCL 310; Appeal No 57 of 2000; [2002] UKPC 9
28 Feb 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith
Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth
(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Held: Dismissing the company's appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The water company had done this. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. No such duty was established. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage.
Sale of Goods Act 1893 14
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ (1) G.J. Hamilton and ' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Calvert v Gardiner and Others Times, 22 July 2002
10 May 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Burton
Ecclesiastical, Nuisance
The claimant sought damages for nuisance in the form of the loud ringing of church bells. The claim was against the local church and also against the bishop. Held: The ring of bells might in law amount to a nuisance, but the action against the Bishop was not going to succeed and was struck out. The management of the church bell ringing was specifically within the remit of the local church. The vicar had a degree of security of tenure, and the bishop had no disciplinary rights or other form of control which might make him potentially liable.
LE Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council; CA 7-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1723; [2003] BLR 67; (2002) 87 Con LR 169; [2003] 15 EG 139; [2003] 1 EGLR 99; [2002] 47 EG 146; [2003] 1 WLR 427
