Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 (House of Lords) 

Written By Nicolas Heyes

Basic Facts: C claimed that the construction of the Canary Wharf Tower disrupted their television signals. The CoA found the claim actionable, but D appealed. 

Issue: What constitutes a private nuisance, and who can sue? 

Held: Appeal dismissed. Interference with TV reception is not actionable nuisance.

  • Lord Goff: TV watching is not actionable as a nuisance. A building alone doesn't constitute a nuisance unless something emanates from it. Only those with a proprietary interest in the land (like freeholders or tenants) can sue. 

  • Lord Hoffmann: Nuisance is about injury to land, not personal discomfort. Without an interest in the land, one cannot claim for injury to it. D is allowed to build on their land, restricted only by planning laws. 

  • Lord Cooke (dissenting): Proprietary rights should not be the sole consideration. Even lawful occupants, such as children, should be protected from nuisances that affect their well-being. 

Nicolas Heyes
Previous

ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 (House of Lords) 
Next

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 (House of Lords)