The plaintiff complained in nuisance that the access to his home had been obstructed by people seeking to use the defendant hotel.
Held: The claim failed. If it was established that the defendant ‘has interfered substantially with the reasonable access to the plaintiff’s house’ the plaintiff would have satisfied the necessary conditions to enable him to maintain the action; in those circumstances he would have ‘sustained an injury affecting him particularly, in a manner beyond that which other members of the public are in fact affected’.
Luxmore J said: ‘It is necessary to determine whether the act complained of is an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living but according to plain and sober and simple notions among English people.’
Judges:
Luxmore J
Citations:
[1930] 1 Ch 138
Citing:
Cited – Lyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420761
