Andreae v Selfridge & Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1937 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Nuisance - Rebuilding operations - Nuisance from noise and dust - Reasonable care - New methods of demolition and rebuilding - Damages - Discrimination between permissible and non-permissible nuisance.
The plaintiff was the occupier of a piece of land which formed part of an island site and on this piece of land she carried on the business of an hotel proprietor. The remainder of the site had been acquired by the defendant company, which was proceeding to demolish the various properties which then occupied the site and to rebuild. The plaintiff complained that the defendant company in carrying out its building operations had conducted them in such a way as by noise and dust to interfere with the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment by her of her premises, and brought the present action for damages. Bennett J., before whom the action was tried, found that the damages alleged had been proved, and assessed them at 4500 l. On appeal:—
Held, (1.) that no cause of action arises in respect of operations, such as demolition and building, if they are reasonably carried on and all reasonable and proper steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours.
In determining what is reasonable, methods of building and demolition must not be taken as stabilized, but new inventions and new methods may be reasonable in the altered circumstances and developments of the day.
(2.) That the evidence showed that the plaintiff was inconvenienced by the dust and noise, but in estimating the damages the Court must be careful not to penalize the defendant company by throwing into the scales against it losses caused by operations which the defendant company was legitimately entitled to carry out; the defendant company could be made liable only in respect of matters in which it crossed the permissible line.
(3.) The order of Bennett J. would be varied by reducing the damages to 1000 l.
APPEAL from a decision of Bennett J.
The defendant in the action, Selfridge & Co., Ld., appealed against a judgment of Bennett J. in the Chancery Division, whereby he awarded to the plaintiff a sum of 4500 l. as damages for nuisance.
The defendant company had acquired as a building site land and buildings forming part of an island site to the south of Wigmore Street, between that street and Somerset Street, and bounded on the east by Duke Street and on the west by Orchard Street, and was in course of demolishing the buildings on that site and constructing new buildings in their place. The plaintiff had for some time occupied two houses on the north side of the site facing Wigmore Street, Nos. 119 and 121 Wigmore Street, where she carried on the business of an hotel proprietor. On October 21, 1931, she agreed to sell her lease to the defendant company. The purchase was completed on September 29, 1936, and her business as an hotel proprietor in connection with these houses thereupon came to an end.
The defendant company carried out four operations. The first operation consisted of the demolition of the buildings occupying the south-west corner of the site and the erection thereon of a new building. This operation began on November 21, 1931, when the demolition of the buildings occupying that portion of the site was begun, and continued until February 13, 1932. The second operation consisted of the demolition of Nos. 16–20 Somerset Street and Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Orchard Street, and the construction on those sites of certain other buildings. That operation began on July 1, 1935, when the defendant company began to demolish Nos. 10–12 Orchard Street, and the work of demolition of those buildings, and some further demolition, which formed part of the same operation, were completed by September 28, 1935. The writ was issued on July 16, 1935.
The third operation consisted of the installation of a lift in buildings which had formerly been carried on as an hotel, known as the Somerset Hotel, occupying Nos. 5–8 Orchard Street. That began on April 25, 1936, and it continued for a comparatively short time. There was a fourth operation, the demolition of No. 125 Wigmore Street, with regard to which no complaint was made.
The first operation consisted of pulling down the existing houses and excavating to the depth of some 60 feet into the ground. The constructional part of the work consisted of erecting upon the site a steel-framed building, with three basements, the framework of these subterranean parts of the building again consisting of a steel framework. The plaintiff first complained, in regard to what was being done in connection with that operation, on March 14, 1932. There were several cranes upon the premises and for some weeks before the complaint was made the defendant company was using cranes at night in connection with its work. When complaint was made, the defendant company agreed, in a letter dated March 16, that the cranes should be stopped between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M.
The second operation consisted of demolition work, which caused a very large quantity of dust and grit to be thrown into the air and carried into the plaintiff's premises.
For the purpose of the second operation the defendant company's contractors used two pneumatic hammers. As the result of objection by a professional man, who had business premises close by, the defendant company limited the use of those pneumatic hammers to certain hours in the day. The actual use of these hammers extended over six days only. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bephia v Sahijaram A Thani
-
Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. 123 (HL)
...(1877), 2 App. Cas. 743 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 59]. Dale v. Hall (1750), 1 Wils 281, refd to. [para. 59]. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [1938] Ch. 1, refd to. [para. Goldman v. Hargrave, [1967] 1 A.C. 645, refd to. [paras. 63, 92]. Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power ......
- Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion Sdn Bhd v Hotel Continental Sdn Bhd (Hong Hing Thai Enterprise Sdn Bhd)
-
Clift v Welsh Office
...to appeal. But the principal point in the appeal is one which arises from the decision of this court in Andreae v Selfridge & Company Ltd [1938] Ch. 1 and we have been told that there are at least 300 outstanding claims in the area of the Welsh Office which raise the same point, so that the......
-
The site
...at 904, per Lord Wright; King v London Borough of Harrow (1994) 39 Con Lr 21 at 50, per hhJ LLoyd QC. 170 Andreae v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938] 1 Ch 1 at 5–6, per Sir Wilfred Greene Mr See also Harrison v Southwark & Vauxhall Water Co [1891] 2 Ch 409 at 413–414, per Vaughan Williams J; Wherry......
-
Nuisance — the Environmental Tort? Hunter v Canary Wharf in the House of Lords
...arein occupation and therefore suffer greater collective discomfort’ per Lord Hoffmann, n 3 above, 706.37 Andreae vSelfridge & Co Ltd [1938] Ch 1; see also Andrew Burrows Remedies for Torts and Breachof Contract (London: Butterworths, 1994) 170; Peter Cane Tort Law and Economic Interests (O......
-
On the Microeconomics of ‘Stagflation’1
...reluctantly compelled to use the term "stagnation" in a similarly ambiguous manner.7 A. H. Hanson: Full Recovery or Stagnation? London, 1938. Ch. 1.8 T. Balogh: Labour and Inflation. Fabian Tract 403. London, 1970. Pp. 31-32.9 W. H. Beveridge: Full Employment to a Free Society. London, 1945......