Case Brief Wiki


Shuttleworth's house is across the street from the new infectious disease ward at the hospital and the plaintiff can see into the rooms of the hospital – but not into the beds specifically. The plaintiff claims that this creates a nuisance, both because he can see into the hospital, because he will hear the crying of child patients, and because he will be at risk of infection.


  1. Is there a nuisance and if so, should there be a quia timet injunction granted before any damages have been suffered by the plaintiff?


Case dismissed with costs.


The judge dismisses the first two claims due to a lack of evidence but states that the third must be considered. He then employs a test to see if an injunction is warrantable:

  1. Is the apprehension well founded?
  2. Is there proof of a real threat of danger?
  3. Is there a strong probability that this will become an actionable nuisance?

There was no proof provided to show that there was a real threat of danger, or that the apprehension was well founded, and therefore the injunction cannot be granted.

The plaintiff also complained of the value of his property decreasing, however the judge also dismissed this due to the fact that no proof was provided, and no legal wrong led to the depreciation.


A court will grant a quia timet injunction if warranted, but evidence must be adduced that there will be a nuisance caused by the defendant's actions.