Nuisance – Building causing interference with television reception – Whether actionable private nuisance – Court of Appeal holding such interference not actionable – House of Lords dismissing appeal Nuisance – Dust from construction works causing discomfort to local residents – Whether persons not having right to exclusive possession of property able to bring action for private nuisance – Court of Appeal holding substantial link rather than exclusive possession necessary – House of Lords allowing appeal
In December 1993 the plaintiff and over 500 residents in the vicinity of Canary Wharf, commenced two separate actions claiming damages in negligence and nuisance. The first action, the television action, against Canary Wharf Ltd, complained of interference with television reception caused by the presence of the Canary Wharf tower. The tower, nearly 250m high, and over 50m square, was clad in stainless steel and stood between the BBC transmitter at Crystal Palace and the plaintiff’s house, which lay in the tower’s electromagnetic shadow. The second action, the dust action, against the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) complained of damage and annoyance from dust as a result of the construction of the link road. In 1981 the area had been designated as an urban development area under section 134 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 . The LDDC was established to “secure regeneration of its area”, and its powers included the power to carry out “building and other operations”. In 1982 the area was designated as an enterprise zone in which planning permission was deemed to have been granted for any kind of development.
In both actions the issue arose whether a plaintiff in an action for private nuisance need have an interest and, if so, what interest, in property.The judge decided that a plaintiff in an action for private nuisance must have a right to exclusive possession of the affected property, and that interference with television was capable of constituting an actionable nuisance. The Court of Appeal disagreed on both points allowing the plaintiffs’ appeal in the dust action and declaring that a plaintiff need not have an interest in property. The plaintiffs and the defendants in both actions appealed to the House of Lords against those findings adverse to them.
Held The appeal in the television action was dismissed.
The appeal in the dust action was allowed.
1. The creation or presence of a building in the line of sight between a television transmitter and other properties was not actionable as an interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
2. The right to sue in private nuisance was limited to those with a right to exclusive possession of the relevant property. The essence of private nuisance was interference with land or the enjoyment of land. Liability in nuisance was strict, but protected only interests in land. It was not sufficient to show a substantial link between the person enjoying the use and the land on which he or she was enjoying it. A mere licensee had no right to sue in private nuisance: Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727 overruled.
Daniel Brennan QC, Charles Pugh and Sarah Moor (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) appeared for the plaintiffs; Lord Irvine of Lairg QC, Philip Havers QC and Daniel Stilitz (instructed by Ashurst Morris Crisp) appeared for the defendants.
