University of cambridge international examinations general. The thesis of this chapter is that private nuisance can only properly be understood as a tort which protects rights in land, and that, understood in this way, it is a thoroughly coherent cause of action. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 2 all er 426 reinstated the requirement that a claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land in order to bring a claim in private nuisance. House of lords lord goff of chieveley, lord lloyd of berwick, lord hoffman, lord cooke of. Ps, local residents, claimed actionable nuisance against d during the erection of canary wharf, which interfered with their tv signal. Tort law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Hunter and others v canary wharf ltd hunter and others v london docklands development corp.
Judgement for the case hunter v canary wharf ps, local residents, claimed actionable nuisance against d during the erection of canary wharf, which interfered with their tv signal. Creative commons noderivatives other resources by this author. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in hunter v canary wharf ltd 1997 ac 655. Canary wharf is a commercial estate on the isle of dogs in london, in the london borough of tower hamlets. Public nuisance, private nuisance, and rylands v fletcher. Hunter v canary wharf in the house of lords john wightman.
Luminis canary wharf, virgin active, canary riverside h museum of london docklands, west india quay7k natwestshop 6k 2e psycle london 6k reebok sports club london 8g re. London docklands corporation continued back to preceding text for private nuisances of this kind, the primary remedy is in most cases an injunction, which is sought to bring the nuisance to an end, and in most cases should swiftly achieve that objective. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 case summary webstroke law. The canary wharf tower interfered with the tv reception of surrounding residents, courtesy if its steel cladding. Hunter v canary wharf ltd3 perhaps the most notable example yet of a group action in private nuisance the house of lords has cancelled the extensions of the court of appeal, and returned the tort to its historical home. The tower was 250 metres tall and was completed near the end. Along with the city of london, it is one of the main financial centres of the united kingdom and the world, containing many of their tallest buildings, including the thirdtallest in the uk, one canada square. However, the court held that it was not actionable as a right to television was not recognised. From 1802 to the late 1980s, what would become the canary wharf estate was a part of the isle of dogs, limehouse and poplar and was one of the busiest docks in the world. This, they claim, was caused by the construction of the canary wharf tower, which was built on land developed by the defendants.
Hunter v canary wharf ltdlondon docklands development. Hl held 1 that tv interference was not an actionable nuisance, and 2 that of those affected, only those with exclusive possession of property could sue. The claimant was an 18 year old woman who was being harassed by the defendant a 23 year old man. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 canary wharf tower interfered with television reception. Facts the plaintiff was a young woman who was receiving harassing telephone calls at home from a former boyfriend. Canary wharf 1997 2 wlr 684, the case concerned an action by a group of residents for damages due to, inter alia, interference to television reception between 1989 and 19912 caused by the building of the canary wharf tower. Appeal from hunter and others v canary wharf ltd qbd independent 20dec94 the plaintiff made two claims arising from the construction works involvd in the canary wharf development. A differently constituted court of appeal9 unanimously favoured khorasandijan over malone. In addition, a second action against london docklands development corporation involved 5 claims for. In hunter v canary wharf 1997 2 wlr 684 the case concerned. The case of hunter v canary wharf 2574 words bartleby. Hunter v canary wharf 1998 1 wlr 434 house of lords 690 claims were made against canary wharf ltd.
For two years, mid1989 to mid1991, residents of the isle of dogs housing estates. Oxford university press online resource centre outline. The claimants lived in the isle of dogs and complained that the erection of the canary wharf tower interfered with their television reception. A mere licensee cannot sue in nuisance the interference must affect the plaintiffs useenjoyment of the land, and the plaintiff must have possession of the land. At first instance hunter and others v canary wharf ltd qbd independent 20dec94 the plaintiff made two claims arising from the construction works involvd in the canary wharf development. Along with the city of london, it is one of the main financial centres of the united kingdom and the world, containing many of their tallest buildings, including the secondtallest in the uk, one canada square. Hunter v canary wharf ltd this information is only available to paying isurv subscribers.
It is one of the main financial centres of the united kingdom, along with the city of london, and contains many of europes tallest buildings, including the secondtallest in the uk, one canada square. Several hundred claimants alleged that canary wharf ltd, in constructing one canada square, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal. Amongst the claimants complaining about this, there were many without a proprietary interest, which means without a right in the land, including spouses and children. Canary wharf is located on the west india docks on the isle of dogs west india dock company. Hunter v canary wharf ltd 1997 ukhl 14 is an english tort law case on the subject of private nuisance. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 ac 655, hl television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants facts a large tower. Procedural history on appeal from the court of appeals decision.
Dust hunterandothers v canary wharf ltd hunterandothers v london docklands development corp 1997 2 all er 426. After the 1960s, the port industry began to decline, leading to all the docks being closed by 1980. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 2 all er 426 established a list of people entitled to bring an action in private nuisance and it did not include the wife of the. The decision of khorasandijan v bush was accordingly wrongly determined in terms of who has standing to sue. Hunter v canary wharf, supra disrupted tv signal from crystal palace group claim tv reception could be protected from private nuisance only dicta not purely recreational any more educationalsocial average person 24 hours a week serious interference overruled bridlington right to a view hunter v canary wharf, supra.
The case of hunter v canary wharf 2574 words 11 pages in order to determine if the plaintiffs, sally, benson, and sue will be able to claim for the nuisance and trespass indirectly caused by the golf club, we will have to look into whether they have the grounds to sue for the torts committed by the defendant, the golf club. Must have a proprietary interest titlelease or legal interest in the land however a licensee does not have the right to sue 2. In hunter v canary wharf 1997 2 wlr 684 the case concerned an. There is no liability in blocking light in the tort of nuisance, and television providing radio waves are analogous to light. Substantial, indirect or consequential, interference in the use and enjoyment of the land hunter v canary wharf ltd. View enhanced pdf access article on wiley online library html view download pdf for offline viewing. The convict had been the prime mover in a conspiracy to. Kent law school, eliot college, university of kent. While the issue of planning permission was considered, their lordships ruled. Television signal, actionable nuisance, property right requirement for claimants. Llb102 torts end of semester exam notes studentvip. Docklands development corp 1997 426 all er facts in the first appeal, several hundred claimants alleged that canary wharf ltd, in constructing canary wharf tower, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal.
A large tower was constructed in the docklands area of east london which now goes by the name of one canada square. Acelawmaterials a level law negligence case notes and. Canary wharf is the secondary central business district cbd of london on the isle of dogs. The case of hunter v canary wharf 2574 words 11 pages in order to determine if the plaintiffs, sally, benson, and sue will be able to claim for the nuisance and trespass indirectly caused by the golf club, we will have to look into whether they have the grounds to sue for. Canary wharf is the secondary central business district of london on the isle of dogs. The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the canary wharf tower constituted a.
He had threatened her with violence, behaved aggressively when he saw her, shouted abuse at her, he would pester her with phone calls at her parents and grandparents house. This essay is an opportunity to show your understanding of the nature of the tort of private nuisance. Licensees hunter v canary wharf ltd, oldham v lawson i. Get free access to the complete judgment in hunter and others v. Khorasandjian v bush 1993 qb 727 hunter v canary wharf ltd. Hunter v canary wharf 1997 ac 655 case summary last updated at 19012020 16. In addition, a second action against london docklands development corporation involved 5 claims for damages in respect of excessive amounts of dust created during the construction of the tower. Several hundred claimants alleged that canary wharf. In hunter v canary wharf the house of lords refused to extend the categories of those who could benefit from the law of nuisance discuss.
London docklands corporation continued back to preceding text for private nuisances of this. Hunter v canary wharf only person with a right to exclusive possession of land can sue may be landlord if permanent damage to property person without documentary title but with exclusive possession squatter. Spa, reebok sports club london 8g skillsmatch 7l sytner canary wharf 8e virgin active, canary riverside h wharfside car valet 0g, 9g cinema everyman canary wharf 6k canary wharf. The document also included supporting commentary from author craig purshouse. In the hunter litigation, the house oflords considered two. Jul 30, 2016 huntervcanarywharf 1998 about this resource. First that the building now prevented her tv signal reception, and second that the works had released substantial volumes of dust so as to. The claimants were living in dockland part of east london and the issues arose when a tower block was constructed at canary. Hunter and others v london docklands development corporation. Residing with the freeholder or tenant will not be sufficient to bring an action in nuisance, even where the injury. Hunter and others v canary wharf ltd 1997 house of lords 426 all er hunter and others v london.
1390 688 1522 602 1263 1138 450 759 1044 1226 1462 1423 255 275 1174 398 10 1413 384 1560 1262 596 224 594 1409 1363 169 1027 424 1066 1042