Coventry v Lawrence
It is no defence to nuisance that the claimant came to the nuisance, planning permission does not authorise a nuisance, and courts should be more willing to award damages instead of an injunction.
Facts
Ms Lawrence and Mr Shields bought a bungalow in Suffolk, near a stadium and track used for speedway racing, stock car racing and motocross, which had been operating, with planning permission, for many years. The noise from the races was very loud. They sued the owners and operators of the stadium and track in nuisance, and sought an injunction.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the noise was a nuisance, and restored the injunction. Lord Neuberger said that it is not a defence that the claimant came to the nuisance, although it may be relevant if the claimant changes the use of his land. The grant of planning permission does not authorise a nuisance, although it may be relevant to the character of the neighbourhood. The defendants could not rely on the activity itself as part of the character of the locality to the extent that it was a nuisance. On remedies, the court said that the approach in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co should not be applied mechanically, and that courts should be more willing to award damages instead of an injunction.
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
- Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316
- 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.
