Wheeler v Saunders Ltd
Encyclopedia
Wheeler v Saunders Ltd [1994] EWCA Civ 32
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 is an English Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...

 case on 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...

 which amended the precedent set by Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343 is a case in English tort law covering nuisance. The council granted planning permission to Medway Dock Co Ltd to redevelop the Chatham Dockyard as a commercial port, noting that this would have some impact on local residents but...

. Wheeler was a veterinary surgeon who owned Kingdown Farm House; the wider farm was owned by J.J. Saunders Ltd, who used it for raising pigs. After Saunders gained planning permission for a pair of pig houses, Wheeler brought an action in nuisance, alleging that the smell of the pigs interfered with his use and enjoyment of the land. When the case went to the Court of Appeal, Saunders argued that the granting of planning permission for the pig houses had changed the nature of the area, as in Gillingham, making the nuisance permissible. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that a pair of pig houses was not a sufficient development to change the nature of an area; the centre of the Gillingham case had been a commercial dock, which was a sufficient development.

Facts

Wheeler was a veterinary surgeon who owned Kingdown Farm House, near, Priddy
Priddy
Priddy is a village in Somerset, England in the Mendip Hills, close to East Harptree and north-west of Wells. It is in the local government district of Mendip....

 with his wife. The farm itself belonged to Kingdown Farm Limited, a company 15 percent owned by Wheeler and 85 percent owned by J.J. Saunders Ltd. The two fell out by March 1988, with Wheeler dismissed from his position as managing director of Kingdown Farm Limited. Between July 1988 and April 1990, J.J. Saunders constructed a pair of pig houses near Kingdown Farm House, which featured a channel to contain the pigs' excrement. Wheeler brought a case on two grounds, the first querying whether he was entitled to an easement
Easement
An easement is a certain right to use the real property of another without possessing it.Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond...

 allowing him to use one of the two ways to access the farmhouse, which involved going between the farmhouse and farm. The second was a claim in 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...

, Wheeler asserting that the smell of the pigs and their excrement was interfering with his use and enjoyment of the farmhouse.

Judgment

The case was originally sent to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice
High Court of Justice
The High Court of Justice is, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, one of the Senior Courts of England and Wales...

, before being transferred to Bristol District Registry, where Judge Weeks gave his judgment on 24 July 1992, dismissing 6 of the 10 claims made by Wheeler but awarding £2,820 of damages and issuing 3 injunctions. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...

, where it was heard by Staughton LJ
Christopher Staughton
Sir Christopher Staughton QC is a British barrister and retired judge, sitting as a justice of the High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal of England and Wales and President of the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar. Born on 24 May 1933, Staughton was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he...

, Gibson LJ
Peter Gibson (judge)
The Rt Hon. Sir Peter Gibson is a retired British barrister and judge who served as the Intelligence Services Commissioner until January 2011...

 and Sir John May. The matter of the easement was based on the case of Wheeldon v Burrows
Wheeldon v Burrows
Wheeldon v Burrows LR 12 Ch D 31 is an English property law case on the implying of grant easements. The case established one of the three current methods by which an easement can be acquired by implied grant, and has effectively been put into statutory force by Section 62 of the Law of Property...

, where Thesiger LJ said that easements would be transferred when they were "necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the property". The Court of Appeal held that the use of this easement was not necessary for the enjoyment of the property.

On the matter of the nuisance, the defendants relied on Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343 is a case in English tort law covering nuisance. The council granted planning permission to Medway Dock Co Ltd to redevelop the Chatham Dockyard as a commercial port, noting that this would have some impact on local residents but...

, where it was held that the granting of planning permission had changed the area in such a way that what would previously have been a nuisance was not. The defendants argued that the granting of planning permission for their pig houses authorised the nuisance in line with Gillingham. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which held that the granting of planning permission for a pair of pig houses did not alter the area in the same way that the granting of planning permission for a commercial dock had in Gillingham.
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK