Case Brief Wiki


(1981) Kennaway built her house on land near a lake on which there was a water-skiing and motorboat-racing club. She knew ahead of time of the activities but did not think that they would disturb her. However, over the years the activity increased and she brought action for an injunction. The lower court found that there was a nuisance but refused to grant an injunction, rather awarding her £1,000 for damages to that date and £15,000 for damages likely to be incurred in the future. Kennaway appealed seeking an injunction, which was allowed.


  1. Does the plaintiff have an action for an injunction in nuisance?


Appeal allowed, injunction granted detailing allowed operation.


The court stated that once the plaintiff had proved that the club had caused a nuisance that interfered in a substantial and intolerable way with the enjoyment of her house, she was entitled to be granted an injunction. However, he clarified by stating that the injunction must protect her from excessive noise, but not prevent the club from organizing events about which the plaintiff cannot reasonably complain. As a result the injunction laid out detailed provisions about how and when the club could operate.


The court expressly disagrees with Denning's ruling in Miller v Jackson and refuses to allow the public interest to prevail.