Nuisance - 2000

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 14 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Camden London Borough Council -v- London Underground Ltd
7 Jan 2000 QBD	Environment, Nuisance
	The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.
	Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 - Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another -v- Scarborough Borough Council [2000] QB 836; [2000] EWCA Civ 51; [2000] 2 All ER 705
22 Feb 2000 CA Stuart-Smith LJ	Land, Torts - Other, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites
	Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant's hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Held. The owner of a servient tenement was under a duty to take positive steps to provide support for a neighbour's land. There was no difference in principle between the danger caused by loss of support and any other hazard or nuisance on the Defendant's land, such as the encroachment of some obnoxious thing, which affected the Claimant's use and enjoyment of his land. Where the question was not whether the Defendant had created the nuisance but whether he had adopted or continued it, there was no reason why different principles should apply to one kind of nuisance rather than another. In each case, liability only arose if there was negligence and the duty to abate the nuisance arose from the Defendant's knowledge of the hazard which would affect his neighbour. The owner of the lower land would be liable where the condition was known, or deemed to be known, and the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Where however the damage was so extensive as not to be foreseeable, liability was not established.
	Link[s] omitted

X -v- A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000 ChD	Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts	Casemap 1 Cites
	Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
	Environmental Protection Act 1990
	Link[s] omitted

Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority -v- South West Water Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 96
30 Mar 2000 CA	Environment, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The term 'watercourse' did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.
	Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)
	Link[s] omitted

Griffiths -v- Pembrokeshire County Council [2000] EWHC Admin 319
31 Mar 2000 Admn Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J	Nuisance
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)
	Link[s] omitted

Elliott -v- Agrevo UK Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 118
7 Apr 2000 TCC	Nuisance, Agriculture
	The claimant sought damages in nuisance, saying that his produce was adversely affected the by the escape of herbicides from the defendant's neighbouring farm.
	Link[s] omitted

Pemberton -v- Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark [2000] EWCA Civ 128; [2000] 1 WLR 1672
13 Apr 2000 CA Roch LJ, Clarke LJ, Sir Christopher Slade	Housing, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser after a possession order. She made regular payments but failed to comply with the order setting terms for suspension. She sought damages from the landlord for nuisance for not dealing with an infestation of cockroaches. The landlord authority asserted that she had insufficient interest to found a claim. She was not a tenant. Held: Her continued occupation with the implicit consent of the authority was sufficient to make her an occupier able to claim in nuisance.
	Link[s] omitted

Griffiths -v- Pembrokeshire County Council
19 Apr 2000 QBD	Environment, Nuisance
	A smoke nuisance can be established on the basis of the smell of smoke alone. It was not necessary to establish the presence of visible smoke. Smoke primarily means visible smoke, but even in common parlance can include the smell. The statutory definition included soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. The smell related to the detection of smoke which constituted the offence.
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)

Hewlings -v- Mclean Homes East Anglia Ltd
3 Aug 2000 QBD	Nuisance
	The appellants had served a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance on an address from which senior officers had previously corresponded but which was not the registered office of the company. The requirement in the Act to serve the notice at the proper address was not mandatory. The intention was to provide summary relief in a form accessible to the layman. In the case of a limited company, the notice could be served upon either the company's principal or registered offices.
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 82

Lambie and Another -v- Thanet District Council
17 Aug 2000 QBD	Nuisance, Environment
	The local authority served notices for noise abatement, requiring the land owners to install sound limiting devices. The owners claimed that the terms of the notice were ultra vires in requiring them to allow entrance to the authority's officers, and were uncertain in their requirements. It was held that the notices required a step to be taken within the Act, and was valid. The uncertainty in the remaining parts of the notice could be cured by substitution of a general reference to residential property.
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Wandsworth London Borough Council -v- Railtrack plc
2 Nov 2000 QBD	Nuisance, Land, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable.

Godfrey -v- Conwy County Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 443
13 Nov 2000 Admn	Nuisance, Crime
	Link[s] omitted

Birmingham City Council -v- Oakley [2000] UKHL 59; [2001] 1 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 1936; [2001] 1 AC 617
29 Nov 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett	Environment, Nuisance, Housing	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When considering if premises fell within the section, and were "in such a state as to be prejudicial to health", the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory and might be considered insanitary did not fall within the provision. The risk of cross infection because the water closet was placed next to the kitchen, and wash basin was in the bathroom on the other side, could not constitute a state of the premises. A broad reading of the words might include the premises. Nevertheless, considering the history of the legislation a narrow interpretation was correct. The section was directed to the presence in the house of some feature in itself prejudicial to health as a source of infection, disease, or illness. The difficulty here was not in the rooms in themselves rather but than their condition, and was outside the purpose of the section, and not a statutory nuisance. Lord Hoffmann: "My Lords, on the surface, this does not look like a very momentous case. The question is whether Mr and Mrs Oakley’s landlord should have provided them with a basin in the wc. The statute which they say made it necessary to install one is ambiguous. The language is capable of bearing such a construction. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that this was what Parliament intended. So the courts have a choice. If they say that Mr and Mrs Oakley should have had a basin, landlords of old houses and flats all over the country will have to instal them. Local authorities and housing trusts will have to incur very considerable expense. Under the surface, therefore, the case raises a question of great constitutional importance. When it comes to the expenditure of large sums of public and private money, who should make the decision? If the statute is clear, then of course Parliament has already made the decision and the courts merely enforce it. But when the statute is doubtful, should judges decide? Or should they leave the decision to democratically elected councillors or members of Parliament?” and "when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator of those days. The same is true of social standards. "
	Environmental Protection Act 1990 77 79(1)(a)
	Link[s] omitted

Mowan -v- London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 357; (2001) EGCS 4; (2001) LGR 228; [2001] 33 HLR 56
21 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton	Housing, Local Government, Nuisance	Casemap
	The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour's aberrant behaviour. Sir Christopher Staughton said: "there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier."
	Link[s] omitted