판결 이유
Private nuisance is a tort that protects interests in land. Only a person with a proprietary interest in the affected land — such as an owner, tenant, or holder of an exclusive licence — has standing to sue in private nuisance. A mere licensee, spouse of an owner, or person with a purely personal right of occupation has no cause of action. Furthermore, interference with television reception caused by the erection of a substantial building is not actionable in nuisance, by analogy with blocking of a view, because neither an unobstructed view nor an unobstructed television signal is a legal right attaching to land.
사실관계
Several hundred residents of the Isle of Dogs in East London sued the developers of Canary Wharf, complaining that the 250-metre, stainless-steel-clad Canary Wharf Tower interfered with their television reception for a period until a relay transmitter was installed, and (in a related action) that construction of the Limehouse Link road generated excessive dust. Many of the claimants were spouses, children, or other family members who lived in the affected homes but held no proprietary interest in them, squarely raising the question of who has standing to sue in private nuisance.
판결 요약
The House of Lords (Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, and Lord Hope of Craighead — majority of 3-2 on the standing issue; unanimous on TV interference) delivered two landmark rulings. First, on standing: the majority (Lord Goff, Lord Lloyd, Lord Hoffmann) held that the tort of private nuisance is concerned with interference with the use and enjoyment of land and protects interests in land. Only a person with a legal or equitable interest in the affected land may sue. To extend the tort to those with no proprietary interest (such as a spouse occupying a matrimonial home in which only the other spouse had a legal interest) would be a fundamental and unjustified change to a well-established principle. Lord Cooke and Lord Hope dissented, favouring a broader right based on residence. Second, on television interference: the court was unanimous that the erection of a building causing interruption to television reception is not a nuisance. There is no right at common law to receive uninterrupted television signals. The analogy with blocking a view or loss of outlook — neither of which is actionable — was apt. Canary Wharf tower had been erected as part of a lawful development. The claim for television interference was dismissed entirely. The case thus established two significant limitations on the scope of private nuisance as a cause of action.
주요 인용문
"An action in private nuisance will only lie at the suit of a person who has a right to the land affected. A mere licensee has no such right."
— Lord Goff at 688
"The erection of a building, even though it may interfere with a neighbour's television reception, is not a nuisance. There is no right to an unobstructed view, and there is similarly no right to receive an uninterrupted television signal."
— Lord Hoffmann at 707
"I see no good reason for departing from the well-established principle that the tort of nuisance is confined to those with an interest in the land affected."
— Lord Lloyd at 696
후속 처리
Followed as the definitive authority on standing in private nuisance. Applied in Pemberton v Southwark LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1672, where the Court of Appeal held that a tolerated trespasser had no proprietary interest and thus no standing in nuisance.
The House of Lords in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13 did not disturb Hunter on standing but reconsidered aspects of the planning permission/locality defence, noting that Hunter's television interference ruling remains correct.
Distinguished in Devenport v Salford City Council (1983) in the context of interference with broadcast signals caused by deliberate interference rather than building, where a different analysis applied.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help