Thompson-Schwab v Costaki
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0221-1 |
| Docket Number | 1955. T. No. 2065 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 21 February 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0221-1
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Ronker and
Lord Justice Parker
In The Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal
Mr INGRAM J. LINDNER, Q.C., and Mr S.B. STENHAM (Instructed by Messrs Beach & Beach) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
The Hon. CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C., and Mr MAURICE BERKELEY (instructed by Messre Reynolds Gorst & Porter) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
THE MASTER OF THS ROLLS: The question raleed by this appeal is a matter of some public interest, and, I do not doubt, seas public importance too. The two plaintiffs are in occupation of houses which are their residences respectively in Chesterfield Street in the West End of London. Their complaint arises out of the fast that in the autumn of last year another of the houses in Chesterfield Street began to be used (and up to the date of the writ continued to he used) for the purposes of prostitution,a phrase which I shall have somewhat te explain and expand presently I can take as sufficient for my Judgment the circumstances as they affect the first plaintiff, Mr Thoapson-Sehwab, whose house No.13 Chesterfield Street is actually next door to the house about which the complaints are made, namely, No. 12.
The firat plaintiff sets cut in his affidavit that he lives there with his family, which includes one young son, and that he employs there for the purpose of his domestic affairs three young girls. He says that until the events of which he complains, Chesterfield Street - though not far distant from other streets which have a more unsavoury reputation - has remained a good elase residential street not affected by the activities of common prostitutes; and he says, therefore, that the activities of which he complains, and which consorn the use of No.12 Chesterfield Street, seriously dresiate the value of his own house as a residence (and that much is proved in evidence), and certainly seriously interfere with him in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of his house as a residence. HiS own evidence and that of his co-plaintiff is supported by the evidence of three Inquiry agents who made observations at various dates in October and November 1955.
The substance of their evidence (and it is sufficient to state it in summary form) is that the two defendants, during the period I have mentioned, were making use of No.12 Chesterfield Street as a resort while carrying on their practices as prostitutes that is to say, they were leaving those premises, walking for the purpose of solicitation towards Curson Street, returning with men whom they had solioited, and then in turn the men left and the women again after them. The kind of activity I think needs no further exposition to anyone who is at all acquainted with the ways of the world.
The evidence on the defendants' side I shall have to mention later; but in all the umstances Mr Justice Wynn-Parry, upon a motion for an interlocutory injunction, granted relief to theplaintiff in this form. He ordered," that the defendants be restrained, until after Judgment in this section or until, farther order whether themselves or by their serwante or agents or any of them otherwise howsoever from using or causing or permitting to be used the premises at No.12 Chesterfield Street, W.1. in the City of Westainster for the purposes of prostitution", and he ordered the defendants forthwith to pay the coats of the motion. It is against that order that defendants have appealed, and Mr Lindner and Mr Stenham for appellants have put the first plank in their case boldly the They say that the law of nuisance, as it has been developed from the ancient assine, has never comprehsndsd activities of this kind which, they say, though possibly shocking to the susceptibilities of ordinary people, does not in any material, that is physical, way interfere with the land of the plaintiffs or their use of it. That such is their case - whether entirely of their own motion or not I do not pause to inquire - is perhaps made plainer by the circumstance that the defense which they have, as we were told, put in makes it clear that according to their submission they should be free (that is, without impinging upon the civil rights of any other person) to use these premises for the purposes of prostitution to their heart's content and in any way they like. That certainly seems a bold plea. But Mr Lindner has pointed out with truth that no case has come before the courta in which this kind of activity has been held to constitute a common law nuisance.
I have said that the present appeal relates to an intericoutory order. I do not think it would be right (and I Certainly do not in all the circumstances think it necessary) that I should attempt any exposition or any definitive view of the wrong known to us as nuisance. For the purposes of this motion I am content to take as correct (as did Mr Justice Wynn-Parry) the passage which I find in paragraph 970 of Clerk and Lindsell's book on Terts, 11th edition. It is there said; "A private nuisanes may be and usually is caused by a person doing on his own land something whichhe is lawfully entitled to do. His sendnot only become a whom the of his acts are not confined to his own land but extend to the land of his neighbors by" - then (1) and (2) are inapplicable here - "(3) unduly interfering with his neighbour in the confertable and convenient enjoyment of his land".
The forms which activities constituting actionable nuisance may take are exceedingly varied, and there is the highest authority for saying that they are not capable of precise or close definition. If the principle is rightly stated is the passage which I have read, then it must depend upon the facts of each particular case whether the conditions, which I have stated as required to constitute a nuisance, are satisfied; and in considering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Laws v Florinplace Ltd
- Sykes v Holmes
-
Hunter et al. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. v. London Docklands Development Corp., (1997) 215 N.R. 1 (HL)
...Ch. 389, refd to. [para. 8]. Dalton v. Angus (1881), 6 App. Cas. 740 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 8, 49, 86]. Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 335, refd to. [para. Bank of New Zealand v. Greenwood, [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 525, refd to. [paras. 8, 50, 95, 135]. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callag......
-
Miller v Jackson
...Co. Ltd.[1936] A.C. 108, P.C. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) 11 H.L.Cas. 642, H.L.(E.). Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki [1956] 1 W.L.R. 335; [1956] 1 All E.R. 652, C.A. APPEAL from Trevor Reeve J. The plaintiffs, John Edward Miller and his wife Brenda Theresa Miller, began an action ......
-
The site
...an unauthorised interference with a neighbour’s land may constitute both a trespass and a private nuisance: hompson-Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 WLr 335 at 338, per Lord Evershed Mr; Louis v Sadiq (1996) 59 Con Lr 127 at 131–132, per Evans LJ. private nuisances were discussed earlier in this c......
-
Table of cases
...[2010] BCJ No 1239, 2010 BCCA 308..................................................................... 242 Thompson-Schwab v Costaki, [1956] 1 WLR 335, [1956] 1 All ER 652 (CA) ........................................................................................408 Thomson (DC) & Co v De......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...23—53. 93 See Khorasandjian v Bush, supra n 57, Burris v Azadani, supra n 61, and the accompanying text. 94 Thompson-Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 WLR 335 at 338; Laws v Florinplace[1981] 1 All ER 659. For local cases, see Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd[1966] 2 MLJ 142 (HC, ......
-
Far Beyond ‘The Early Morning Crowing of a Farmyard Cock’:
Revisiting the Place of Nuisance within Legal and Political Discourse
...v Anglian Water Authority [1987] WLR 1381Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 ChD 852Thomas v NUM [1986] 1 Ch 20Thompson-Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 All ER 652 REFERENCES Ashworth, A. (1999) Principles of Criminal Law (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauman, Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics. Ox......