Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
Encyclopedia
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14 is an English tort law
case on the subject of private nuisance
. Several hundred claimants alleged that Canary Wharf Ltd, in constructing Canary Wharf Tower, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal. The House of Lords
held unanimously that such interference could not amount to an actionable nuisance; the nuisance was equivalent to loss of a view, or of a prospect, which had never previously been actionable.
's primary television transmitter, in Crystal Palace
, interfered with the reception of several hundred home owners. It was submitted that before the construction of the tower (in the summer of 1989), television reception had been good. The issue was remedied in April of 1991, whereby a broadcast relay was installed in Balfron Tower
, to transmit television signal into the area affected. Nevertheless, the claimants alleged that the large metallic structure had interrupted their television reception, and claimed private nuisance - for loss of enjoyment - and remuneration for their wasted license fee
, for the time their signal had been impaired.
concentrated on two aspects of private nuisance.
The first issue was who could be seen to have a legitimate right in land, a necessary requirement to sue in nuisance. The Lords rejected the interim case of Khorasandjian v Bush, where it had been found that no proprietary interest in a property was required to bring an action. In doing so, they upheld the findings of Malone v Laskey, establishing again that only householders with a right to a property could commence actions in nuisance. The second issue was that, after establishing who could bring an action for nuisance, what rights were protected by the tort. Lord Lloyd
in his judgment referred to three areas of private nuisance:
It was pointed out that, as stated in Walter v Selfe, any nuisance must be relatively substantial, and not merely a 'fanciful complaint'. It had been established previously that a drop in the value of land would not necessarily allow an action in nuisance. The issue at hand however was whether it would be fair in the circumstances to impose restrictions upon land owners with regard to their right to build properties.
Lord Goff referred to several authorities in support of the common law
standing that merely blocking a property owner's view, airflow, or light, is not actionable. From this, he stated that: "more is required than the mere presence of a neighbouring building to give rise to an actionable private nuisance." On the idea that it would be more desirable to allow nuisance claims from someone without an interest in land, Lord Goff said the following.
Whilst it was agreed upon that there had been no actionable nuisance in the instant case, the Lords differed in their interpretations of whether an interference to television reception could constitute a nuisance. Lord Cooke found that an interference by a building could amount to a nuisance, if it was unreasonable, or a misuse of the defendant's land; Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope
however stated that as the right to television reception is not obtained, interference with it could not amount to a nuisance:
Before Hunter it had been judicially stated in Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board that it was not thought interference to television reception could give rise to an actionable nuisance, by Buckley J:
However, these remarks had been made obiter dicta, and thus held no judicial authority. The legal basis on which a complaint of television reception was considered to take place was that of loss of a view, or prospect.
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...
case on the subject of private nuisance
Nuisance in English law
Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's...
. Several hundred claimants alleged that Canary Wharf Ltd, in constructing Canary Wharf Tower, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal. The House of Lords
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
held unanimously that such interference could not amount to an actionable nuisance; the nuisance was equivalent to loss of a view, or of a prospect, which had never previously been actionable.
Facts
Canary Wharf Ltd undertook to construct a large tower (now known as the Canary Wharf Tower), for commercial and residential purposes. The tower was completed in November 1990, reaching 250 metres in height, and 50 metres squared in area. However, the tower, being situated less than 10 kilometres from the BBCBBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a British public service broadcaster. Its headquarters is at Broadcasting House in the City of Westminster, London. It is the largest broadcaster in the world, with about 23,000 staff...
's primary television transmitter, in Crystal Palace
Crystal Palace, London
Crystal Palace is a residential area in south London, England named from the former local landmark, The Crystal Palace, which occupied the area from 1854 to 1936. The area is located approximately 8 miles south east of Charing Cross, and offers impressive views over the capital...
, interfered with the reception of several hundred home owners. It was submitted that before the construction of the tower (in the summer of 1989), television reception had been good. The issue was remedied in April of 1991, whereby a broadcast relay was installed in Balfron Tower
Balfron Tower
Balfron Tower is a 27-storey housing block in Poplar, a district of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the East End of London, UK. It forms part of the Brownfield Estate, an area of social housing between Chrisp Street Market and the A12 northern approach to the Blackwall Tunnel...
, to transmit television signal into the area affected. Nevertheless, the claimants alleged that the large metallic structure had interrupted their television reception, and claimed private nuisance - for loss of enjoyment - and remuneration for their wasted license fee
Television licensing in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies, any household watching or recording live television transmissions is required to purchase a television licence every year. As of 2010, this costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for black and white. The licence is required to receive any live...
, for the time their signal had been impaired.
Judgment
The judgment of the House of LordsHouse of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
concentrated on two aspects of private nuisance.
The first issue was who could be seen to have a legitimate right in land, a necessary requirement to sue in nuisance. The Lords rejected the interim case of Khorasandjian v Bush, where it had been found that no proprietary interest in a property was required to bring an action. In doing so, they upheld the findings of Malone v Laskey, establishing again that only householders with a right to a property could commence actions in nuisance. The second issue was that, after establishing who could bring an action for nuisance, what rights were protected by the tort. Lord Lloyd
Anthony Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Berwick
Anthony John Leslie Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Berwick PC is a retired British judge, and member of the House of Lords.He was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge. He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and was raised to the House of Lords with the title Baron Lloyd of Berwick, of...
in his judgment referred to three areas of private nuisance:
It was pointed out that, as stated in Walter v Selfe, any nuisance must be relatively substantial, and not merely a 'fanciful complaint'. It had been established previously that a drop in the value of land would not necessarily allow an action in nuisance. The issue at hand however was whether it would be fair in the circumstances to impose restrictions upon land owners with regard to their right to build properties.
Lord Goff referred to several authorities in support of the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
standing that merely blocking a property owner's view, airflow, or light, is not actionable. From this, he stated that: "more is required than the mere presence of a neighbouring building to give rise to an actionable private nuisance." On the idea that it would be more desirable to allow nuisance claims from someone without an interest in land, Lord Goff said the following.
Whilst it was agreed upon that there had been no actionable nuisance in the instant case, the Lords differed in their interpretations of whether an interference to television reception could constitute a nuisance. Lord Cooke found that an interference by a building could amount to a nuisance, if it was unreasonable, or a misuse of the defendant's land; Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope
Lord Hope
Lord Hope may refer to:*David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead , senior judge*David Hope, Baron Hope of Thornes , former Archbishop of York*A subsidiary title of the Marquess of Linlithgow, created in 1703...
however stated that as the right to television reception is not obtained, interference with it could not amount to a nuisance:
Significance
| "Ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to the elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to the plain and sober and simple notions among the English people?" |
| Walter v Selfe (1851) |
Before Hunter it had been judicially stated in Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board that it was not thought interference to television reception could give rise to an actionable nuisance, by Buckley J:
However, these remarks had been made obiter dicta, and thus held no judicial authority. The legal basis on which a complaint of television reception was considered to take place was that of loss of a view, or prospect.