Coventry v Lawrence

Question 1

Facts

Answer 1

Bungalow 560 meters from stock-car racing stadium, and 860 meters from a motocross track.

Predominantly rural area

Question 2

Trial Judge

Answer 2

In favour of claimants

Though D had made the noise for over 20 years, they had not acquired a prescriptive right to do so, and could have organised their activities in a way that would avoid intrusive noise.

Remedy: injunction restricting D to 12 noisy weekends a year

Question 3

Court of Appeal

Answer 3

Supported the position on the assessment of locality by reference to planning permission.

Overturned Trial judge decision

Question 4

Supreme Court

Answer 4

Held: actionable noise nuisance - injunction restored

Essentially an easement, and can bind its successor (not here but could happen)

Prescription defence not satisfied here.

Criticised the Shefler principles on damages: ‘out of date’ and ‘mechanical’

ALSO: when considering liability, planning permission will generally be of little assistance to D.
- Shouldn’t be thought of as a defence, but may be relevant to assessment of a remedy.