Watt v Jamieson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 1953 |
| Date | 31 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 8. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
The Lord President.
NuisanceHeritable PropertyTenementWater heater in flat causing damage to neighbouring flatDefence that user complained of involved only normal, natural and familiar use of dwelling-house in burghRelevancy.
In an action of damages brought by the owner of a flat in a tenement against the owner of a flat in an adjoining tenement, the pursuer averred that damage had been caused to his flat through the discharge into a vent in the mutual gable of sulphur-impregnated water vapour from a gas water heater installed by the defender in his flat. In answer to the pursuer's plea of nuisance the defender maintained that the action was irrelevant in respect that the user complained of involved only a normal, natural and familiar use of dwelling-house property in a burgh.
Held by the Lord President, sitting in the Outer House, that in general it is not a relevant defence to an action based on nuisance that the user complained of is a normal and familiar use of property; and proof before answer allowed.
Observations on the law of nuisance.
Francis Clifford Watt, Q.C., brought an action of damages against Harvey Morro Jamieson, W.S. The following summary of the pursuer's averments is taken from the opinion of the Lord President, who, sitting in the Outer House, heard the case in Debate Roll:"In this action the pursuer, who is proprietor of the upper floors of No. 3 Moray Place, claims 3050 from his neighbour, who is the proprietor of the lower floors of No. 4 Moray Place, as reparation for the damage to his house attributed to an alleged nuisance created by the defender. Summarising the pursuer's averments at their face value, it appears that the defender installed in the basement of No. 4 Moray Place a gas water storage heater, the flue of which he connected to the vent in the common gable between No. 3 and No. 4. In process of time alarming symptoms of damage made their appearance in No. 3 in the vicinity of this flue or vent, including damp in the interior walls, discoloration and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LORD ADVOCATE v The REO STAKIS ORGANISATION Ltd
...withdrawal of a neighbour's support could amount to nuisance in the law of Scotland. Dictaof Lord President Cooper in Watt v. JamiesonSC1954 S.C. 56 at 57 applied; Strathaven Co-operative Society v. Lanarkshire County Council, 25th February 1976, unreported,followed. (2) That liability in n......
-
RHM Bakeries (Northern) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...on two recent decisions in the Court of Session — Lord Advocate v. Reo Stakis Organisation Ltd. 1982 S.L.T. 140 and Watt v. Jamieson 1954 S.C. 56 — and I shall have to refer to them later. But it is convenient to start with Kerr v. The Earl of Orkney (1857) 20 D. 298 which for long has been......
-
Judith Robb V. Dundee City Council
...of landlord and tenant which was the relationship between the parties in the present case. Reference was made to Watt v. Jamieson 1954 SC 56 and more particularily to the opinion of Lord President Cooper in the passage cited by the sheriff principal. It was said that this passage required t......
-
(first) Thomas Chalmers And (second) Gail Chalmers Against Diageo Scotland Limited
...to a material extent (Wilson v Gibb and Brattesani (1903) 10 SLT 293, Maguire v Charles McNeil Limited 1922 SC 174, Watt v Jamieson 1954 SC 56, Central Motors (St Andrews) Ltd v Magistrates of St Andrews 1961 SLT 290), and that the pleadings did not specify such materiality. In my view, the......