The Tenant, his Wife, the Lodger and their Telly: a Spot of Nuisance in Docklands
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1996.tb02688.x |
| Author | Rosalind English |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
CASES
The Tenant, his Wife, the Lodger and their Telly:
a Spot of Nuisance
in
Docklands
Rosalind English"
The English law of nuisance is an unruly beast, insusceptible of exact definition,
indiscriminately unleashed on a wide range of legal situations, marginalised
or
over-categorised in the textbooks. But this amorphous tort has proved very useful
as an instrument of social policy, particularly in the environmental field. This is
because it usually involves a revealing interplay of private rights and public
interests, issuing, sometimes, in
a
quick and effective remedy in the form of
injunctive relief. The availability of this remedy, however, may also
be
a
fatal flaw
at the heart of nuisance. It inhibits the finding of liability in many situations which
would appear to fit squarely within the traditional classifications of tortious
interference. The upshot
is
a series of cases which reflect the
ad
hoc
efforts by the
courts in the past to avoid issuing an injunction by denying liability altogether; and
now, whilst maintaining this tradition, judges appear to be adopting a more
accommodating position on
locus standi.
A recent decision on a number of
preliminary issues by the Court of Appeal illustrates the contradictory position that
the courts find themselves in when confronted with this public-private hybrid tort,
in the context of public interests and private rights.
Hunter
v
Canury
Wharf
Ltd
London
Docklands Development Corporation
'
raises three issues of fundamental
importance to nuisance and its role in the regulation of land use: definition of the
harm, title to sue and defences.
Hunter
v
Canary Wharf Ltd/London Docklands Development
Corporation
For two years, mid-1989 to mid-1991, residents of the Isle
of
Dogs housing estates
experienced interference with their television signal caused by the construction of a
250
metre tower by Canary Wharf. The problem
was
rectified by the introduction of
another relay transmitter in 1991 and, in late 1994, the plaintiffs
-
some of whom
were
spouses and children of those with proprietary interests in properties
in
the
area
-
brought their claim in nuisance before the Official Referee, the damage being
the loss of enjoyment of television and wasted licence fees. In another action
they
claimed damages against London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)
for the deposit on their properties of substantial quantities of dust, created as a result
of the construction of the Limehouse Link Road. This consolidated action,
however, involved issues
of
negligence* which do not arise for discussion here.
Richard Havery
QC,
sitting as Official Referee, decided as a preliminary issue
*
University College London.
I
[1996]
1
All
ER
482.
2
These issues turned
on
whether dust amounted to physical damage.
726
Q
The Modern Law Review Limited
1996
(MLR
595,
Septernkr). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
1JF
and
238
Man Street, Cambridge, MA
02142,
USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial