Defences in private nuisance: coming to the nuisance and planning permission (Coventry v Lawrence)
Six years ago, Thornfield Raceway Ltd began holding motocross events on its land in rural England, with planning permission for that use. Two years ago, Ms Adeyemi bought a farmhouse nearby and moved in, using it as her home, as previous owners had done. The noise from the events substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of her home and, the court finds, amounts to a nuisance. Thornfield argues that (1) Ms Adeyemi came to the nuisance, knowing about the events when she bought, and (2) its activities have planning permission.
Which of the following best describes Thornfield's arguments?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: Neither argument provides a defence, although the court has a discretion whether to grant an injunction or to award damages instead.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Coming to the nuisance is no defence, planning permission normally does not assist a defendant in nuisance, and the choice between injunction and damages in lieu is discretionary.
Defences in private nuisance: coming to the nuisance and planning permission (Coventry v Lawrence)
In Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court confirmed that it is no defence to a nuisance claim that the claimant came to the nuisance, at least where the claimant uses her property for essentially the same purpose as her predecessors did before the nuisance began. Ms Adeyemi uses the farmhouse as a home, as before. The Court also held that the mere fact that the activity has the benefit of planning permission is normally of no assistance to the defendant in a claim by a neighbour complaining of noise or other loss of amenity; planning permission is not equivalent to statutory authority. Neither argument therefore defeats the claim. As to remedy, the Court emphasised that whether to grant an injunction or award damages in lieu is a matter for the court's discretion, which should not be fettered by a mechanical application of the Shelfer criteria; planning permission may be relevant to that discretion.
Why A is wrong: Coming to the nuisance has for over 180 years been held to be no defence.
Why B is wrong: Planning permission is not statutory authority and is normally of no assistance as a defence to a nuisance claim.
Why C is wrong: A prescriptive right requires at least 20 years' actionable nuisance; these events have taken place for only six years.
Why E is wrong: An injunction is a discretionary remedy; the court may award damages in lieu instead.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Who can sue in private nuisance: an interest in land is required (Hunter, confirmed in Fearn v Tate)
Which of the following best describes who can sue in private nuisance?
Effect of contributory negligence on damages (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1)
Which of the following best describes the effect of Faisal's fault on his claim?
Volenti and passengers in motor vehicles (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.149)
Which of the following best describes the insurers' argument?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.