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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll