Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris
Interference with electronic equipment caused by signalling equipment was not an actionable nuisance, because the interference was not reasonably foreseeable.
Facts
Mr Morris ran a recording studio near a railway line. Railtrack installed a new track circuit signalling system, which caused electromagnetic interference with the electric guitars used in the studio. Mr Morris lost business as a result, and sued Railtrack in nuisance.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Railtrack was not liable. Buxton LJ said that the old test of whether the claimant's use was abnormally sensitive should now be treated as part of the general question of whether the interference was reasonably foreseeable. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the signalling system would interfere with the guitars, which were sensitive equipment. The case refined the rule in Robinson v Kilvert.
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
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
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.
