header-logo header-logo

Winners & losers

20 March 2015 / Andrew Butler
Issue: 7645 / Categories: Features , Public , In Court
printer mail-detail
nlj_7645_andrew-butler

Andrew Butler assesses the impact of Lawrence —one year on

A year after the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Lawrence & another v Fen Tigers Ltd and others [2014] AC 822, [2014] UKSC 13 how have the radical changes foreshadowed by that case played out?

The decision in Lawrence

To recap— Lawrence was a case in which the claimant householders brought an action in nuisance against various entities involved in the management of a motocross track in their Suffolk locality. The judge at first instance held that the activities constituted a nuisance and granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that the judge had gone wrong by assessing the character of the area without having regard to the offending activity. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and reinstated the decision of the judge.

Why is Lawrence important?

Lawrence gave rise to a number of important questions, including:

  • whether there could be a prescriptive right to cause a nuisance;
  • whether and to what extent
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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll