Mon12112017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

NUISANCE: Neighbourhood watch

28 November 2017  

David Schmitz considers how the principles in Coventry v Lawrence on nuisance and the character of the area might best be applied

Among the many questions tackled by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence (No. 1) [2014] is the question: in a nuisance claim, where the court is considering the character of the area in order to decide whether an activity there amounts to a nuisance or not, what difference does it make if that character has been altered by activities on the defendant’s own land, and what further difference, if any, does it make if planning permission was given for those activities?

 

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Attorney-General v Cole & Son [1901] 1 Ch 205

    Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1993] UKHL 12

    Coventry & ors v Lawrence & anor [2014] UKSC 13

    Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343

    Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683

    Hunter & ors v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14

    Kennaway v Thompson & ors [1980] EWCA Civ 1

    Lambton v Mellish [1894] 3 Ch 163

    Rushmer v Polsue & Alfieri Ltd [1906] 1 ChD 234

    St Helen’s Smelting Company v Tipping [1865] UKHL J81

    Sturges v Bridgman (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852

    Watson & ors v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 15

    Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1994] EWCA Civ 8