header-logo header-logo

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

Winners & losers

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll