A company’s manager resided in a house as its licensee. His wife was injured when a bracket fell from a wall in the house. She claimed damages from the defendants in nuisance and negligence. The claim in nuisance alleged that the fall of the bracket had been caused by vibrations from an engine operating on the defendants’ adjoining premises.
Held: Her claim in nuisance failed.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: ‘The main question, however, on this part of the case is whether the plaintiff can maintain this action on the ground of vibration causing the damage complained of, and in my opinion the plaintiff has no cause of action upon that ground. Many cases were cited in the course of the argument in which it had been held that actions for nuisance could be maintained where a person’s rights of property had been affected by the nuisance, but no authority was cited, nor in my opinion can any principle of law be formulated, to the effect that a person who has no interest in property, no right of occupation in the proper sense of the term, can maintain an action for a nuisance arising from the vibration caused by the working of an engine in an adjoining house. On that point, therefore, I think that the plaintiff fails, and that she has no cause of action in respect of the alleged nuisance.’ Fletcher Moulton LJ: ‘So far as the plaintiff’s case is based upon nuisance, the contention on her behalf appears to me to be supported by no authority. Witherby and Co. were the tenants and occupiers of these premises, and if the premises had been injured or the enjoyment of them interfered with by the vibration it was open to them to take any one of three courses–they might come to the courts for an injunction to stop the vibration, or they might simply have tolerated it, or they might have authorised its continuance either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. A person in the position of the plaintiff, who was in the premises as a mere licensee, had no right to dictate to Witherby and Co. which course they should take, and they seem to have voluntarily permitted the vibration to continue. Indeed, if it is permissible to conjecture, I have very little doubt that the proximity of the engine was by no means an unmixed evil to them, for it may well have affected the amount of rent paid by them for the premises. But, whether that be so or not, it was a matter entirely for the tenant, and a person who is merely present in the house cannot complain of a nuisance which has in it no element of a public nuisance.’
Sir Gorell Barnes P, Fletcher Moulton LJ
[1907] 2 KB 141
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Applied – Metropolitan Properties v Jones 1939
The defendant had been tenant of one of the plaintiffs’ flats but had assigned his lease. The assignee disappeared and the tenant, who as original lessee remained liable for the rent, went back into possession. In response to an action for rent, he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.190018