Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB) (16 April 2003)

The owners of a country estate near an RAF base sued the Ministry of Defence in nuisance due to severe noise from Harrier jet training. The court found a nuisance existed but, due to the public interest, refused an injunction and awarded damages.

Facts

The claimants, Mr and Mrs Dennis, were the owners of Walcot Hall, a valuable country estate in Northamptonshire located near RAF Wittering. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) used RAF Wittering as a key base for training pilots for Harrier jets. The training exercises, which involved low flying and circuit training, generated exceptionally loud and frequent noise, significantly affecting the claimants’ ability to enjoy their property and run their commercial ventures on the estate. The claimants brought an action against the MoD in the tort of nuisance and also claimed a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Issues

The central legal issues before the High Court were:
1. Did the noise created by the Harrier training flights constitute a common law nuisance?
2. If a nuisance was established, could the MoD rely on the defence of public interest or statutory authority?
3. What was the appropriate remedy? Specifically, should the court grant an injunction to restrain the flying activities, or should damages be awarded in lieu of an injunction?
4. Did the noise constitute a violation of the claimants’ right to respect for their private and family life and home under Article 8 ECHR, and if so, what was the appropriate remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Judgment

Mr Justice Buckley delivered the judgment, finding in favour of the claimants on the issue of nuisance but refusing to grant an injunction.

Nuisance

The judge had no doubt that the noise levels constituted a nuisance. He found the interference with the claimants’ enjoyment of their land to be substantial and unreasonable, describing the noise as ‘intolerable’.

The noise from Harrier flying, as it is carried on at and from RAF Wittering, is an intolerable nuisance. I am satisfied that it has seriously interfered with the Dennis’s enjoyment of their land for years, would continue to do so, and would do so in anyone’s hands.

Public Interest and Remedy

The core of the judgment concerned the interplay between the private rights of the claimants and the public interest in national defence. The MoD argued that the public interest in training pilots should serve as a defence to the claim. Buckley J rejected this, holding that public interest is not a defence to liability in nuisance. However, he found it to be the decisive factor when considering the remedy. He concluded that granting an injunction to stop the training would be manifestly against the public interest.

Where the rights of the individual are in conflict with the public interest, the individual’s rights must, in some cases, be subordinated to that public interest. In such a case, a court would not grant an injunction to prevent the public good being achieved, but it may require the public to pay for the private property right it has compulsorily acquired.

Instead of an injunction, the court awarded damages to compensate the claimants for the loss in value of their property caused by the continuation of the nuisance. The damages were assessed at £950,000, representing the diminution in the capital value of Walcot Hall.

Human Rights Act Claim

The judge found that the noise did engage and interfere with the claimants’ Article 8 rights. However, he held that this interference was justified under Article 8(2) as being necessary in a democratic society for the interests of national security. He reasoned that the award of damages for the common law nuisance claim ensured that a fair balance had been struck between the public interest and the individual’s rights, thereby satisfying the requirements of the Convention.

In my judgment the public interest and the defence of the realm, which I have concluded outweigh the Dennis’s rights in nuisance, also satisfy the requirements of Article 8(2)… The award of damages which I have made … ensures that a fair balance is struck and provides the ‘just satisfaction’ to which the Dennis’s are entitled.

Implications

The case is a significant modern authority on private nuisance, particularly where a public body’s activities conflict with private land rights. It clearly establishes that while public benefit is not a defence to a nuisance claim, it is a critical factor in determining the appropriate remedy. The decision affirms the court’s discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction, effectively allowing the ‘compulsory purchase’ of the right to commit a nuisance where the public good is overwhelming. It also demonstrates how common law remedies can be used to provide ‘just satisfaction’ for a justifiable breach of Article 8 ECHR, integrating human rights principles into traditional tort law analysis.

Verdict: The claimants’ action in nuisance succeeded. An injunction was refused, and the claimants were awarded damages of £950,000 for the diminution in value of their property.

Source: Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB) (16 April 2003)