Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]

Facts

  • The Canary Wharf tower interfered with the TV reception of surrounding residents, courtesy if its steel cladding.

canary-wharf-tower

Issue

  • Could there be liability?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • There is no liability in blocking light in the tort of nuisance, and television providing radio waves are analogous to light
  • To sue, one must have a legal interest in land: with possession, as a tenant or as a licensee with full control over the property; children may not sue
  • Potential claimants may be ‘bought off’
  • Damages in nuisance are calculated with a ‘loss of rent’ calculation: of the property were rented, how much less would a tenant be able to pay the claimant to rent it in its ‘damaged’ state
  • Dust may constitute a nuisance if it reduces the value of the claimant’s land
  • Damage due to personal injury may not be compensated under Rylands v Fletcher
  • A right to TV reception was not in the general nature of rights capable of being recognised as an easement in land law – it is too uncertain
RELATED CASE  Drysdale v Hedges [2012]

Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 26th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy