Nuisance - interference with television reception

Citation

(1998), "Nuisance - interference with television reception", Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1998.11316aab.019

Nuisance - interference with television reception

Nuisance ­ interference with television reception

The most important nuisance action to come before the courts for many years was the decision of the House of Lords in Hunter v. Canary Wharf/London Docklands Development Corporation [1997] 2 AllER 426. In this case some 680 households were complaining of interference with television reception to their homes caused by the erection of Canary Wharf Tower and substantial quantities of dust deposited in their homes by road construction work on the Limehouse link road. Not all of the plaintiff residents in the dust action were householders. Two important questions arose in this case. First, could interference with television reception constitute an actionable nuisance? Second, who could sue in nuisance?

On the first question, the answer given by the House of Lords was that interference with television reception is not capable of constituting an actionable nuisance since, subject to planning control, a person is free to build what they like on their own land even though this might interfere with their neighbour's use and enjoyment of their land. The court drew a comparison here with the loss of a view which has never been actionable. Furthermore the court considered that television reception is a purely recreational use and not one necessary to the use and enjoyment of land (Bridlington Relay v. Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965]1 AllER 264.)

On the second question of who can sue in nuisance, the Court of Appeal had decided that the right to sue in private nuisance should not be restricted to persons with a proprietary interest in the land but should be extended to include anyone who occupied the property as a home since they had a sufficient link with the property affected. Thus the spouse, or the children of an owner and anyone else with a sufficiently strong link with the property would be able to sue for nuisance. The House of Lords however, considered that this would be too difficult a test to apply, would it for example cover a lodger or an au pair? In any case, the tort of nuisance protects interests in land. Thus where a nuisance such as the emission of toxic gases results in personal injury to a neighbouring occupier the measure of damages in nuisance, unlike negligence, reflects the diminution in value of the land not the injury. Anyone lacking the necessary interest in the affected land can bring their action in the tort of negligence provided that the necessary conditions for such an action exist. The House of Lords therefore re-affirmed that the right to sue in private nuisance is restricted to those with a proprietary interest in the land affected.