Facts[edit | edit source]

690 claims were made against Canary Wharf ltd. The claimants lived in the Isle of Dogs and complained that the erection of the Canary Wharf Tower interfered with their television reception. In addition, a second action against London Docklands Development Corporation involved 513 claims for damages in respect of excessive amounts of dust created during the construction of the tower. Some of the claimants were owners or tenants of properties, but many of the claimants had no proprietary interest in land at all. Some were children living with parents, some were relations or lodgers with use of a room and some were spouses of the tenant or owner of the property.

Issue[edit | edit source]

  1. Does blocking a television signal constitute a nuisance in law?
  2. Whether an interest in property was required to bring an action in nuisance

Decision[edit | edit source]

Action dismissed.

Reasons[edit | edit source]

The court held that for an action in private nuisance to lie in respect of interference of the plaintiff's enjoyment of his land it will generally arise from something emanating from the defendant's land (such as noise, smell, etc.). Occasionally actions on the defendant's land themselves are so offensive that they constitute a nuisance, however this is not the case here.

Ratio[edit | edit source]

  • Electrical interference of a television signal does not constitute a nuisance in law.
  • In general a nuisance will arise from something emanating from the defendant's land.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.