Shelfer and Another v City of London Electric Lighting Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1895 |
| Year | 1895 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Procedure - Suspension of Injunction - Appeal - Extension of Time - Court to which Application should be made.
A judgment directing an inquiry as to damages on account of a nuisance was varied by the Court of Appeal, who granted an injunction, but suspended its operation for a certain time:—
Held, that an application for its further suspension might be made to and disposed of by the judge to whose Court the action was attached.
THESE actions were tried before Kekewich J. in April, 1894F1, when he refused to grant an injunction, but granted an inquiry as to damages occasioned by a nuisance. On December 18, 1894, his judgment was varied by the Court of Appeal, who granted the injunction, but suspended its operation until the first motion day in Easter Sittings, 1895. In April, 1895, the operation of the order was further suspended until June 12, 1895, upon the defendants undertaking to expedite the appeal which they had then presented to the House of Lords.
The defendants afterwards abandoned their appeal to the House of Lords, and were desirous of procuring a further suspension of the injunction in order to make alterations in their works so as to abate the nuisance complained of. This application was in the first instance made to Kekewich J.; but he doubted whether it would be right for him to suspend the operation of an order made by the Court of Appeal, and the application was accordingly now made to the Court of Appeal.
Moulton, Q.C., Renshaw, Q.C., and W. C. Braithwaite, for the defendants.
Warmington, Q.C., and Waggett, for the plaintiffs in the first action; and Warmington, Q.C., and Badcock, for the plaintiffs in the second action.
THE COURT (Lindley, Lopes, and Rigby L.JJ.) heard the present application, and granted a further suspension of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerry Ingredients (UK) Ltd v Bakkavor Group Ltd and Others
...circumstances. In deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify the refusal of an injunction, the approach laid down in Shelfer is applicable, if not directly then by analogy." 75 The " Shelfer" to which there is reference in this passage is Shelfer v City of London Ele......
-
Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd
...to some misunderstanding, much of the judgments were taken up with a consideration of the applicability of the principles laid down in Shelfer's case [1895] 1 Ch. 287 in the well-known judgment of A. L. Smith L.J. That case was, however, concerned exclusively with the proper principles upo......
- Permodalan MBf Sdn Bhd v Tan Sri Datuk Seri Hamzah bin Abu Samah and Others
- Insofex Sdn Bhd v Labasama Group Sdn Bhd
-
Law Commission Report On Rights To Light
...represented the high watermark of the strict interpretation of the principles in Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Company [1895] 1 Ch 287. This was however criticised at the highest level in the Supreme Court by Lord Neuberger in Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, a case about ......
-
Real Estate Update: Spring 2014
...effect 14 days after service. Originally published April 2014 Footnotes 1 Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 2 [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) 3 [1895] 1 Ch 287 4 Paragraph [96] and [119] 5 Paragraph [124] 6 Paragraph [125] 7 Paragraph [161] 8 Topland Portfolio No.1 Ltd v Smiths News Trading Ltd [201......
-
Implications Of 'Fen Tigers' For Property Developers
...many years the Courts have been guided as to which remedy should be awarded by the famous Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co. [1895] 1CH 287 "good working rule". Damages in substitution for an injunction may be awarded where four conditions are The injury to the claimant's legal......
-
Obtaining An Injunction To Protect Rights To Light Following The High Court Decision In Heaney
...whether or not to grant an injunction. The key case, notwithstanding Heaney, remains Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company [1895] 1 Ch 287 which was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1894 and has remained good law to the present day. L Smith LJ in Shelfer sets out a 'good worki......
-
The site
...aC 851 at 872, per Lord Sumner; Watson v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd [2009] EWCa Civ 15. 235 Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287 at 322, per aL Smith LJ. See also Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd [2007] VSCa 311; Fisher v Brooker [2009] 1 WLr 1764 a......
-
Litigation - Remedies and Practice
...Property Act 1925, s 84(9). The jurisdiction of s 84 is considered in Chapter 30. 2 After Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287, up to and including Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822. 3 Senior Courts Act 1981, s 50. 4 [1895] 1 Ch 287 at 322–323. 296 R......
-
Table of Cases
...(1997) 31 January, Cty Ct 76, 77 Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co; Meux’s Brewery Co v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287, 64 LJ Ch 216, [1891–4] All ER Rep 838, CA 52, 204–205, 206 Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding [1973] AC 691, [1973] 2 WLR 28, [1973] 1 All ER 9......
-
Particular Easements and Examples of Analogous Remedies of Relevance to Development
...looking to remove support is entitled to do 45 Lawrence v Coventry [2014] UKSC 13. 46 Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287 at 317 and 322–323; Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1391. 47 Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent ......