Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Members of a household without a property interest cannot sue in nuisance, but they may have a claim under the Human Rights Act, which is affected by any damages awarded in nuisance to the owners.
Facts
Residents living near a sewage treatment works operated by Thames Water complained of odours and mosquitoes caused by the negligent operation of the works. The claimants included householders with a property interest, who could sue in nuisance, and members of their households, including children, who had no interest in the property. Those without a property interest claimed damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, for breach of their right to respect for private and family life under article 8.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been right that damages in nuisance were for injury to the land, not to the individual, but that the amount would reflect the loss of amenity suffered by the occupiers. Waller LJ said that a member of the household without a property interest might have a claim under the Human Rights Act, but that the award of damages in nuisance to the owner of the property would be relevant to whether it was necessary to award damages under the Act to afford just satisfaction to the other members of the household.
Related cases on environmental torts and civil liability
- Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001
- Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312, [2013] QB 455
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, [2009] QB 335
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343
- Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
Studying environmental 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.
