Continue reading "Nuisance: Neighbourhood watch"
This post is only available to members.
Nuisance: Neighbourhood watch
David Schmitz considers how to approach nuisance cases where the character of an area has changed ‘It must be remembered that the principal question, nuisance or no nuisance, will not be determined solely by whether the activity in question is in keeping with the character of the locality or not.’ In Coventry v Lawrence [2014], …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Attorney-General v Cole & Son [1901] 1 Ch 205
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1993] UKHL 12
- Coventry v Lawrence [2011] EWHC 360 (QB); [2012] EWCA Civ 26; [2014] UKSC 13
- Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343
- Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14
- Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd [2016] EWHC 560 (Ch)
- Rushmer v Polsue & Alfieri Ltd [1906] 1 ChD 234
- St Helen's Smelting Company v Tipping [1865] UKHL J81
- Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 ChD 852
- Thompson-Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 WLR 335