Nuisance - 1996

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Budd -v- Colchester Borough Council [1996] Env LR 128
1996 QBD	Nuisance, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	This was a dog-barking case in which the Court had to consider an abatement notice. It was argued that a notice which did not specify the level of barking which constituted the nuisance and which did not specify precisely what was to be done to abate that nuisance was bad. Held: The local authority did have a choice of merely requiring a result in a particular case although, it said, that might give rise to a ground of appeal that there was an informality, defect or error in the notice.

Sterling Homes -v- Birmingham City Council [1996] Env LR 121
1996 QBD McCullough J	Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an abatement notice referring to the transmission of noise and vibration through the structure from the nearly industrial premises which in terms read "Do hereby require you to abate the said nuisance within 56 days ...., and for that same purpose require you to carry out such works as may be necessary to ensure that the noise and vibration does not cause prejudice to health or a nuisance, take any other steps as may be necessary for that purpose" Held: The notice was defective. It left unspecified what works were required. The court expressed misgivings about the stringency of the law, but went on "As the law stands, local authorities are not, in any event, obliged to require works to be done or other steps to be taken; they can simply require the nuisance to be abated; the obligation to specify the "works" and the "steps" only arises if they choose to include in their notices a requirement for works to be done or steps to be taken."

Crown River Cruises Ltd -v- Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd and Another
6 Mar 1996 QBD	Transport, Nuisance
	Damage caused to a permanently moored barge was actionable in private nuisance as if the barge was part of the land.

Regina -v- Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke [1996] 4 All ER 589
3 Apr 1996 QBD Leggatt LJ, Sir Iain Glidewell	Environment, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Citers
	Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of £3,000 compensation. Held: Compensation should be awarded for the period from the date of the notice until the date of the hearing. Where however the proceedings were delayed for more than six months from the date of the notice, the period was limited to the last six months before issue. Leggatt LJ "The power to make a compensation order under section 35 of the 1973 Act is of course not peculiar to statutory nuisance. So the power, and the monetary limit to which it is subject, were not themselves tailored to the requirements of statutory nuisance. It also seems unlikely that the Legislature paid regard specifically to the period in respect of which compensation would be payable. By section 35 the court may make a compensation order ´for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from' the offence. The offence is of allowing a statutory nuisance to exist at the complainants' premises at the date of the hearing. . . . I see no warrant for construing section 82 (or section 35) so as to entitle the court to take account of the whole period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed. That is not the subject of the complaint, which therefore gives no notice to the person responsible of the length of the period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed."
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(6) - Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 35

Ellison & others -v- Ministry of Defence & Another; Ellison & others -v- Ministry of Defence and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 518
18 Jul 1996 CA	Nuisance
	Link[s] omitted