House converted into three flats – Tenant of middle flat alleging injurious noise arising from normal occupation of other flats – Poor sound insulation – Whether landlords knew or reasonably ought to have known that nuisance was a necessary consequence of letting flat with poor sound insulation – Tenant’s appeal allowed
In 1975 the respondent council converted a Victorian property in London NW5 into three flats, each occupying an entire floor. In 1992 the council let the middle flat to the appellant single mother (the tenant). In 1995 the tenant brought proceedings against the council for damages for inconvenience and ill health allegedly caused by lack of sufficient insulation between her flat and the other two with resulting disturbance by sundry noises from “all of the normal domestic activities of the occupants”. Though pleaded in terms of breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment the case was both argued and decided in the county court as one brought in nuisance. It was common ground that the conversion satisfied the building regulations in force in 1975, but would not have met the noise requirements imposed by the regulations in force in 1992. Judgment was given for council. The tenant appealed, contending that the judge had erred,inter alia, in (i) taking the material date as 1975 rather than 1992 and thereafter; (ii) in holding that the lack of any breach of statutory duty in 1975 decided the question of whether a noise nuisance then existed; and (iii) in attaching undue importance to the fact that the council were not in breach of their repairing obligations under the tenancy.
Held The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the county court.
1. The tenant’s contentions were sound. Furthermore the judge had failed to consider the vital issue of the council’s knowledge or presumed knowledge of the conduct alleged to have constituted the nuisance. A line of cases from Brew Bros Ltd v Snax (Ross) Ltd [1970] QB 612 to Habinteg Housing Association v James (1994) 27 HLR 299 decides that a landlord is liable for any mischief that arises from the necessary result of what he has authorised or required, and is presumed to know what the natural and necessary result will be. He is equally liable if his reason for not having that knowledge was failure to use reasonable care to acquire it, it being no defence that the premises were being used in a normal way if they are not fit to be so used without interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of adjoining occupiers.
2. For the purpose of a claim for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, the relevant date for the possession of actual or presumed knowledge is the date of the letting to the plaintiff.
James Goudie QC and Zia Nabi (instructed by Goldbergs) appeared for the appellant; Christopher Baker and Josephine Henderson (instructed by the solicitor to Camden London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
