“As the Information Commissioner’s Office fines Tameside Energy Services £45,000 for unwanted calls, it demands a simplification of the rules around punishment.”
The Guardian, 8th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Two companies which appear in BBC Three series The Call Centre have been issued with fines related to nuisance calls.”
BBC News, 18th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The breach by a sewerage undertaker of its duty under section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to permit connection of a private sewer to the public sewer did not give rise to a liability in nuisance.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Children could get in trouble with the law simply for being ‘annoying’ under the Home Secretary’s new scheme to replace Asbos, senior police, crime commissioners and councils have warned.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15
“On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did so without a permit.”
WLR Daily, 17th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Birmingham CC v Ashton is a case which illustrates the difficulty that judges face when they are invited to make possession orders on the grounds of nuisance and anti-social behaviour against tenants with mental health problems.”
NearlyLegal, 16th December 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A protester who disrupted this year’s Boat Race by swimming into the path of the crews was found guilty today of causing a public nuisance.”
The Independent, 26th September 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“John Pusey and his wife Cherry spent 10 years trying to stop passing motorists using the bottom of their garden as a public convenience. But while the high court agreed it was annoying – the judges ruled the ‘comfort breaks’ did not amount to a ‘nuisance.’ They rejected the couple’s claim to close down the lay-by by the side of the road, leaving them with a six figure legal bill.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th July 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A court ruling has cast doubt on whether urinating in public is a nuisance – as long as no-one sees. So is it really ever acceptable?”
BBC News, 15th May 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“An 87-year-old woman has been given an interim anti-social behaviour order (Asbo) for playing her radio too loud and banging her walking stick on the wall, a council confirmed today.”
The Independent, 10th April 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The reverse suffered by the claimants in the noisy motor racing case case before the Court of Appeal last month was something of a body blow to common lawyers and environmentalists. So this latest development in nuisance litigation should be welcome news.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Environmental and planning law newsletter (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, March 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
Barr and others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312; [2012] WLR (D) 86
“Conventional principles of the law of nuisance were to be applied to a claim based on nuisance by smell from a waste tip operated pursuant to a waste management permit. The fact that the alleged interference did not breach the permit nor amounted to negligence did not mean that the user had to be deemed ‘reasonable’.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“For the last year or so, the law of nuisance has been in a state of flux pending this appeal. In this case about an odorous landfill, Coulson J had ruled that compliance with the waste permit amounted to a defence to a claim in nuisance, and that a claimant had to prove negligence in the operation of the landfill before he could claim in nuisance. The Court of Appeal has today reversed this decision.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A £140,000 court case could have been avoided with ‘a moderate degree of carpeting’, a senior judge has said.”
BBC News, 16th March 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A couple yesterday launched legal action claiming their lives had been made hell by the clicking of heels on the hard floor of the £5m apartment above their West London flat.”
Daily Telegraph, 2nd March 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“If the character of a locality had been changed as a consequence of planning permission having been granted and implemented, then the question whether particular activities in that locality constituted a nuisance should be decided against the background of its changed character. One consequence might be that otherwise offensive activities in that locality would cease to constitute a nuisance.”
WLR Daily, 27th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Plans to give communities tougher protection from anti-social behaviour will be piloted in the summer, the Home Secretary will say today.”
The Independent, 30th January 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“An operator carrying out activities authorised by legislation is immune from common law nuisance liability unless the claimant can prove negligence. Any damages for such a nuisance will constitute ‘sufficient just satisfaction’ for the purpose of the Human Rights Act; even if breach of a Convention right is proved, no further remedy will be available.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd January 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A couple who say they were driven out of their family farm by the ‘nightmare’ hum of wind turbines have mounted a ground-breaking £2.5 million compensation bid in London’s High Court.”
Daily Telegraph, 4th July 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024