header-logo header-logo

01 August 2014
Issue: 7617 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Nuisance

Coventry and others v Lawrence and another (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46, [2014] All ER (D) 226 (Jul)

In respect of the specific issue of landlords’ liability for their tenant’s nuisance, it was not enough for them to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it. In order to be liable for authorising a nuisance, the landlords should “either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or they must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property”. Further, in considering whether landlords had authorised a nuisance by letting a property from which the tenant had caused the nuisance, the authorities suggested that there had to be a “virtual certainty”, or “a very high degree of probability”, that a letting would result in a nuisance before the landlords could be held liable for the nuisance. Authority to conduct a business was not an authority to conduct it so as to create a nuisance, unless the business could not be conducted without a nuisance. Where landlords were being held liable for their tenant’s

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll