Christie v Davey
Noise made deliberately and maliciously to annoy a neighbour is a nuisance, even if similar noise made for a legitimate purpose would not be.
Facts
Mrs Christie and her family were music teachers, and gave music lessons and played music in their semi detached house. Mr Davey, their neighbour, was annoyed by the music, and in retaliation he began to bang trays, whistle, shriek and knock on the party wall whenever the music was played. Mrs Christie sued him in nuisance.
Legal principle
North J held that Mr Davey's conduct was a nuisance, and granted an injunction. The Christies' music was a reasonable use of their house, and was not a nuisance. But Mr Davey's noises were made deliberately and for the purpose of annoying his neighbours, and the malicious motive made them a nuisance, even though similar noises made for a legitimate purpose might not have been.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
- Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] QB 485
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
