Lawrence & Anor v Fen Tigers Ltd & Ors

Private nuisance by noise is assessed by reference to the locality and the effect of the interference on the ordinary use and enjoyment of land. Absolute noise thresholds are not determinative. The court must consider the character of the area, the frequency, duration and variability of the noise, and its impact on reasonable occupiers.

Planning permission may affect the character of a locality, but it does not generally authorise a nuisance. A landlord is not liable merely because it knows of a tenant’s nuisance or could seek forfeiture, unless the landlord authorised, participated in or otherwise legally caused the nuisance. The law does not recognise an easement to create noise which would otherwise be a nuisance.

The claimants owned and occupied Fenland, near a speedway and stock-car stadium operated by RDC Promotions and a motocross track operated by Moto-Land UK Ltd. They alleged continuing private nuisance from noise and sought damages, injunctions, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.

The freehold owners of the relevant land were also sued on the basis that they could control the activities. The court considered the character of the locality, planning permissions, prescription, liability for past and continuing nuisance, and the appropriate remedies.

1. Liability. The operation of the Stadium and Track caused a continuing private nuisance by noise. The nuisance was established by the evidence of the claimants and other residents, supported by contemporaneous council observations. The variability of the noise, including its dependence on wind direction and the activities conducted, did not prevent liability.
2. Locality and planning permission. The area remained substantially agricultural, despite the Stadium, Track and nearby airfield. The planning permissions permitted activities at particular times and, in some cases, were personal and contingent. They did not permanently transform the locality and did not authorise the commission of a nuisance. The relevant issue was the effect actually produced in the locality.
3. Landlords. The freehold owners of the Track were not liable. The Lease prohibited nuisance and noisy use, and a landlord is not liable merely for failing to forfeit a lease. Liability attached to those operating or controlling the nuisance: Mr David Coventry, Moto-Land and, for the limited period when he operated the Stadium, Mr James Waters.
4. Prescription. The alleged right was not a right to use the Stadium, but a claimed right to generate noise amounting to a nuisance. The law does not recognise such an easement, nor an easement exercisable only at specified times or on a limited number of days. In any event, the evidence did not establish the necessary uninterrupted twenty-year use.
5. Remedies. The claimants were entitled to damages for loss of amenity, measured by the difference between the rental value with and without the nuisance. Judgment was entered jointly against Mr Coventry for £10,325, Moto-Land for £10,425 and Mr James Waters for £100. Injunctions were contemplated against Mr Coventry and Moto-Land, subject to further submissions on their precise terms.
6. Aggravated damages were not awarded because the alleged intimidation and property attacks were not proved to be attributable to defendants liable for the nuisance. Exemplary damages failed because it was not proved that a relevant defendant knowingly or recklessly committed the nuisance while deliberately pursuing a financial advantage.