header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 November 2021 / Richard Buckley
Issue: 7955 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Disruption overhead

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
63032
Richard Buckley discusses fighter pilots, locality principles & the law of nuisance
  • Two contrasting cases involving noise made by jet fighters during pilot training are examined.

A familiar proposition of the law of nuisance is that the ‘locality’ of the defendant’s activities is relevant to a determination of whether the interference with comfort and enjoyment of land suffered by the claimant in fact constituted an actionable nuisance. But what factors and activities should be considered when deciding upon the nature of the locality? In particular, can the defendant’s own pre-existing activities be taken into account, even if those activities form the basis of the complaint?

In Jones and another v Ministry of Defence [2021] EWHC 2276 (QB), [2021] All ER (D) 52 (Aug), decided in August 2021, the High Court was confronted with this question in a case concerning noise on the claimants’ land caused by jet fighter aircraft flown from a nearby airbase during the training of Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots. The conclusion reached was at variance with one reached nearly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll