header-logo header-logo

02 May 2014 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7604 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Making a noise

web_francis

The decision in Coventry v Lawrence cannot be ignored, says Andrew Francis

On 26 February 2014 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] All ER (D) 245 (Feb). That was a noise nuisance case. The claimants lived near the defendants’ speedway track in Suffolk. At first instance an injunction was granted on terms that limited the activities on the defendants’ track. On appeal the Court of Appeal said that the proper remedy was damages. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The decision of the Supreme Court

The judgments of the court are complex and some of them are long. The issues for the Supreme Court were; first, whether it is possible to acquire a prescriptive right to do something which would otherwise be a private nuisance; second, whether it is a defence to a nuisance claim to say that the claimant has “come to the nuisance” (for example by acquiring or occupying property after the nuisance has started); third, how far the defendants’ own activities

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll