Woods and Another v Riley and Another: CA 4 Jul 2005

Neighbours claimed under a covenant requiring the defendants not to use their land in such a way as to cause a nuisance. The neighbours had extended their shop so as to include a post office.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Claims in nuisance and annoyance should be viewed robustly. The shop was important in a small village community. The sorting room had been moved, but it was open to the judge on the evidence to find that the extent of increase in noise was not actionable.


Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ, Carnwath LJ


[2005] EWCA Civ 1129




England and Wales


CitedTod-Heatley v Benham 1888
What was ‘annoyance’ between neighbours
The court considered how to construe a covenant in a lease ‘nor do or wittingly or willingly cause or suffer to be done any act, matter, or thing in or upon or about the said premises, which shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, . .
CitedHampstead and Suburban Properties v Diomedus 1969
McGarry J said: ‘nuisance and annoyance will continue to be regarded by the court according to robust and commonsense standards’. . .
CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230943