Coventry v Lawrence
[2014] UKSC 13
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Planning permission for an activity that generates noise does not, in itself, constitute a defence to a claim for private nuisance, nor does it change the law of nuisance so as to authorise interference with a neighbour's use and enjoyment of their land. However, planning permission may be relevant in two ways: first, as evidence of the character of the locality (which is a relevant factor in assessing whether an interference is unreasonable); second, where the planning permission has changed the nature of the neighbourhood, it may affect where the line is drawn between tolerable and intolerable interference. The court also substantially relaxed the rigid criteria for awarding damages in lieu of an injunction laid down in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287, holding that the award of damages rather than an injunction is a matter of discretion to be exercised in all the circumstances.
Facts
The defendants operated a motocross stadium and speedway track in Suffolk that had been operating for over 20 years with various planning permissions. In 2006 the claimants, Mr and Mrs Lawrence, bought a house (Fenland) about 560 metres from the stadium. They later brought a private nuisance claim for the noise caused by racing and motorcycling at the stadium. The defendants raised several defences including: (1) that they had planning permission; (2) that the claimants had 'moved to the nuisance'; (3) that a right to commit the nuisance had been acquired by prescription through long use. The trial judge and Court of Appeal dismissed the claim on the ground that planning permission and long use had legitimised the activity.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, and Lord Carnwath) allowed the claimants' appeal (on the issue of liability) and held the activity did constitute a private nuisance. Lord Neuberger gave the main judgment. On planning permission, he confirmed the principle that a grant of planning permission does not authorise a nuisance — planning law and the law of nuisance are separate regimes — but planning permission may be relevant in affecting the character of the locality, which is one of the factors in nuisance. On the 'moving to the nuisance' defence, Lord Neuberger held that the mere fact the claimants bought knowing of the activity does not bar their claim, though it may be relevant to remedy. On the injunction versus damages question, he held that the rigid 'working rule' in Shelfer (which presumed an injunction) was too strict. The court has a discretion and should not mechanically apply Shelfer: damages may be more appropriate in some cases, particularly where an injunction would be disproportionate. The matter was remitted for further consideration of remedies. A later Supreme Court hearing ([2014] UKSC 46) addressed limitation and prescription.
Key Quotes
"Accordingly, I consider that the mere fact that the activity which is said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of no assistance to the defendant in a claim brought by a neighbour who contends that the activity cause a nuisance to her land in the form of noise or other loss of amenity."
— Lord Neuberger at [96](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"First, the application of the four tests must not be such as “to be a fetter on the exercise of the court’s discretion”. Secondly, it would, in the absence of additional relevant circumstances pointing the other way, normally be right to refuse an injunction if those four tests were satisfied. Thirdly, the fact that those tests are not all satisfied does not mean that an injunction should be granted."
— Lord Neuberger at [123](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"I would accept that the prima facie position is that an injunction should be granted, so the legal burden is on the defendant to show why it should not."
— Lord Neuberger at [121](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
The leading modern authority on private nuisance and planning permission. Applied in Watson v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 15 (pre-Coventry) and confirmed as correct in subsequent nuisance cases.
Applied in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46, the subsequent Supreme Court hearing on the limitation and prescription issues in the same litigation.
Applied in Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, where the Supreme Court discussed the character-of-the-locality principle and confirmed Coventry as the leading authority on when planning permission may be relevant to nuisance.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help