Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) | A-Level Law | Key Case Summaries | Tort Law

For an actionable claim in nuisance it must be proven that the use or enjoyment of the land is interfered with, and not just a recreational activity that takes place on the land.

#tortlaw #tort #alevellaw

CASE SUMMARY

Claimant: Residents living near Canary Wharf
Defendant: Developers of Canary Wharf

Facts:
The residents claimed that the construction of Canary Wharf interfered with their television signal. Steps were taken to rectify the issue but there were two years of interference, a claim was made in nuisance in respect of this time period.

Outcome: Not liable

Legal principle:
A person is entitled to build on their land, more is required than the mere presence of a building stopping something getting to the claimant’s land to form an actionable claim in nuisance. What was interfered with was the television signal, because it was interference with a purely recreational facility, as opposed to interference with the health or physical comfort or well-being of the claimants, it was not an actionable claim.
00:00 Introduction
00:17 Case facts
00:51 Case outcome & legal principle