Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
Only a person with a proprietary interest in land can sue in private nuisance, and interference with television reception by a building is not an actionable nuisance.
Facts
The Canary Wharf tower, a very tall building in the Docklands area of London, interfered with the television reception of hundreds of local residents. Some of the residents also complained of dust from the construction of a road. Some of the claimants were owners or tenants of their homes, but others were family members or lodgers with no interest in the land.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the residents could not recover for the interference with television reception, because the mere presence of a building that interferes with the reception of television signals is not an actionable nuisance, in the same way as there is no right to a view. Lord Goff said that, in the absence of an easement, a landowner is entitled to build on his land as he wishes. The House also held, by a majority, that only those with a proprietary interest in the land, such as owners or tenants, or exclusive possession of it, can sue in private nuisance, overruling Khorasandjian v Bush on this point.
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
- 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
- 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.
