Searching:
  • Acts
  • SIs
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Bills before Parliament
Searching:
  • Official Journal C
  • OJC Documents (in CELEX)
  • EU Cases
  • EU Legislation
  • EU Treaties
  • EU Proposals
  • EU Nat. Implementation
  • EU Parl. Questions
  • EFTA Documents
  • EU External Agreements
  • OJ Daily
  • Human Rights Conventions
Searching:
  • HERMES
  • Times
  • EU News and Commentaries
  • CUP Journals
  • Bills before Parliament
  • Other Articles
  • PLC
  • OUP Journals
  • Blackwell Journals
  • RMIT Journals
  • Court Forms
close
Lawrence (Katherine) & another v Fen Tigers Ltd & others
To see all the information available for this document you will need to Sign In.

1 User Commentary

Melanie Davidson (In-house lawyer) 28 September 2015

Case Digest: Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46

0 reviews Your rating:

Whether the respondents and the landlords of a stadium used for motorcar racing were both liable for nuisance

Lord Neuberger of the Supreme Court handed down a majority judgment in the matter ofCoventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) (No 2), [2014] UKSC 46 on 23rd July 2014.

This case related to an earlier Supreme Court decision, Lawrence (Katherine) & another v Fen Tigers Ltd & others, [2014] UKSC 13, which ruled that the respondents who used a stadium for motorcar and motorbike racing were liable for nuisance against the appellants who owned and occupied property (Fenland) close to the stadium.

The Appellants brought proceedings against the landlords of the stadium and also a predecessor landlord.  The Supreme Court ruled to reverse the Court of Appeal decision in order to restore the trial judge's orders, which included a provision dismissing the claims against the landlords. The order also granted an injunction against the respondents to reduce the level of noise arising from the stadium and ordering them to pay 60% of the appellants' costs. Permission was also given to parties to apply to vary the terms of the injunction.

However, by the time of trial Fenland was damaged by a fire and left unoccupied. The effect of this Supreme Court decision was to restore the orders for an injunction, damages and an order for costs. Four further issues then arose: whether the injunction should be lifted until Fenland was rebuilt; when the parties should apply to the judge to vary the terms of the injunction; whether the respondents' landlords were also liable in nuisance; and whether the order for costs was contrary to the respondents' European Convention of Human Rights article 6 rights.

The Supreme Court held that the injunction imposed ought to be lifted until Fenland was once again occupied. Any party had permission to apply to vary or discharge the injunction at any time. The claim in nuisance against the landlords was dismissed as they had not permitted nor participated in the nuisance and finally the respondents' argument that the order for costs infringes the respondents' rights under Article 6 of the ECHR was adjourned for a further hearing.

database/2017-07-28T20:06:59.2141072Z/10564909

Getting the most out of


JustCite is a one-of-its-kind legal research tool that shows you how materials cite and relate to each other. It has an enormous index of information about legal documents and where to find them, but does not contain the documents themselves.

Justis is our full-text online legal library, with an ever-growing range of primary and specialist law reports, judgments and legislation from the UK, Ireland, EU, Australia and Canada.

Register for a Free Trial
Get started with Justis and JustCite now