Archive for the 'Nuisance' Category

It never rains but it pours

By SJM on 25/03/2012. 0 Comments

The EHCR has recently delivered its judgement in Kolyadenko v Russia , which (apart from demonstrating the reach of the ECHR jurisdiction to the remote corners of Asia) is a useful case applying principles we would recognise under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

The 6 applicants in this case are residents of Vladivostok, who brought proceedings against the Municipal Authority and the Water Company alleging responsibility for damage caused to their homes and belongings in a flood which occurred on 7th August 2001.

The flood started with the release of excess water from the nearby dam following a period of exceptionally heavy rainfall. This excess water travelled through … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Nuisance.

Pigeons in the flat alas*

By NL on 21/02/2012. 1 Comment

Siveter v Wandsworth LBC (2012) CA (Civ Div) 16/02/2012 [Not on Bailii yet, just a Lawtel note]

S was the secure tenant of Wandsworth in a 4th floor flat. She had complained to Wandsworth about pigeons nesting outside her flat, in a cupboard that had an opening into the flat. It was not in dispute that the pigeons had poultry mites. Wandsworth sent pest control who removed the pigeons and disinfect the nest.

However poultry mites remained and moved into the flat for fresh hosts. They multiplied, so that S and her son could no longer remain in the flat as both were being bitten.

S claimed for damages on … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Nuisance and secure-tenancy. Tags: .

Don’t be a newcomer

By J on 04/12/2011. 0 Comments

One of the best known judgment in the English speaking world is Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966. The start of the judgment of Denning LJ (for it is he) is worth setting out, just to remind you all:

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for

… Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Nuisance. Tags: , , .

Shaken and Stirred

By NL on 16/10/2011. 0 Comments

Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 804

We missed this one when it came out in July 2011. Not sure why – sorry. This was an appeal of a claim in nuisance, trespass, harassment and personal injury. The claim arose out of building works on an adjoining property. The appeal is worth looking at on issues of quantification of damages for trespass and the foreseeability of personal injury.

Jones and Lovegrove owned a 3 storey terrace at 105 Lower Thrift Street. Mr & Mrs Ruth owned 103 and 101 Lower Thrift Street, both originally two storey terraces. Between 2002 and 2007, the Rs gutted and rebuilt … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note, Housing law - All, Nuisance and Unlawful eviction and harassment.

Wandsworth: headed for the naughty step?

By NL on 15/08/2011. 43 Comments

As is now pretty well known (and as I noted in the comments below this post) Wandsworth Council apparently made a bid to bring the first riot related possession proceedings. There are some things about Wandsworth’s behaviour that should be pointed out, but it also turns out that all might not be as it seems, leaving some questions for Wandsworth to answer.

Sadly, I’m going to have to link to some sources (including the Daily Mail) that identify the Wandsworth tenant and her son, who is the alleged rioter. I’m not going to use their names because, at least at present, I see no reason to do and quite … Read the full post

Posted in ASB, Housing law - All, Nuisance, Possession and secure-tenancy. Tags: , , , .

Road noise, loss of value and human rights

By NL on 03/08/2011. 0 Comments

Thomas & Ors v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862

This Court of Appeal case might be rather limited on its facts, but there are some broader issues and it is interesting. The appeal was of a preliminary issue, whether the Claimants’ claim under Article 1 Protocol 1 was viable. Art 8 was not relied upon.

Briefly, the appellants all own houses near to a new relief road in Brigend. They claimed compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, alleging depreciation in the value of their homes due to noise and other nuisance from the road. For the purposes of this appeal, such a depreciation … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Nuisance. Tags: , .

X & Y v UK settled without hearing

By NL on 30/07/2011. 1 Comment

X, Y & Z v the United Kingdom – 32666/10 [2011] ECHR 1199

The long and sorry story of X & Y v Hounslow appears to have reached an end. As you will recall, this was the case that resulted from the horrendous abuse of two highly vulnerable Hounslow tenants in their home by youths. Hounslow had been aware of the danger to X & Y in the period leading up to the abuse but had failed to make any provision to transfer them to alternative, safer, accommodation. At first instance, the High Court found for X & Y on a claim based on negligence (our report), then … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Nuisance and secure-tenancy. Tags: , , .
row of sheds footer image
5 pages