Nuisance

Citation

(1999), "Nuisance", Property Management, Vol. 17 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1999.11317dab.008

Nuisance

Butcher Robinson & Staples Ltd and others v. London Regional Transport and another [1999] EGCS 71.

This case concerned the question of who has title to sue in nuisance. The five claimant companies were all wholly owned by Chapter Group Plc who owned the office block different parts of which they all occupied, four of them as tenants and one as the management company to whom they all paid service charges. From January 1994 until early 1998 all of the claimants suffered disruption caused by the defendants' work on the Jubilee underground line extension. The claimants brought action in nuisance and/or negligence, complaining that the defendants had conducted the work in a dilatory manner and had failed to keep the resulting obstruction, noise, dust, vibration and mess within reasonable bounds. They claimed damages for loss of business, loss of productive staff time, staff absenteeism through sickness, additional travel and accommodation costs. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had insufficient interest in the premises to support their claim. This was the preliminary issue to be decided by the court.

Judgement was given for the defendants following Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 where Lord Lloyd had held that claims in private nuisance lay for injury to land by encroachment or physical damage or loss of amenity. However, where loss of amenity is alleged, as in this case, a claimant in nuisance must establish that he had an interest in the land affected, whether as owner, lessee or licensee with exclusive possession. The same applied in negligence where there was no claim for personal injuries (see: Leigh & Sullivan Ltd v. Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd [1986] AC 785).

In this case none of the claimants occupied under a written tenancy agreement and at any one time it was unclear what parts of the building were allocated to any one claimant at any particular time. Some parts of the premises such as dining rooms and conference rooms were for common use and not in the exclusive possession of anyone. In addition, there were other companies from the Chapter Group present in the building during the period of disturbance. Thus the court held that none of the claimants had a sufficient proprietary interest in any of the property to maintain an action in nuisance or negligence. Furthermore, the claimants could not rely on their collective occupation as there were no special circumstances to indicate that the corporate veil was a mere facade: (see: Slade J. in Adams v. Cape Industries Plc [1990] 2 WLR 657,755)

The Law is stated as it is understood to be up to 1 August 1999.