The claimant complained of noise nuisance. The defendant appealed from rejection of its defence of immunity under the 1982 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘There is nothing in section 76(1) which makes it a precondition of immunity that the flight or ordinary incidents of the flight must be reasonable. The only specified requirement as to reasonableness is in relation to the height of the aircraft ‘having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case’. The Judge made no finding that the height of the helicopters is unreasonable having regard to those factors. That is not surprising since Mrs Peires’ real complaint is about frequency and duration rather than height. As to those matters, as Mr Marland observed, the immunity conferred by section 76(1) is only relevant if there would otherwise be an actionable nuisance and so presupposes use that would, aside from the statutory immunity, be unreasonable.’
Judges:
Sir Terence Etherton MR, Underhill, King LJJ
Citations:
[2017] EWCA Civ 273, [2017] WLR(D) 277, [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 330, [2017] Env LR 32, [2017] LLR 594, [2017] 1 WLR 2865
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Aviation Act 1982 76(1) 77(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Nuisance, Transport
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582095
