Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14

Residents near Canary Wharf sued for nuisance due to television interference from the tower and dust from road construction. The House of Lords held that interference with television signals by a building is not actionable nuisance, and only persons with proprietary interests in land can sue in private nuisance.

Facts

The London Docklands Development Corporation developed Canary Wharf, including a tower nearly 250 metres high with stainless steel cladding and metallised windows. Local residents in Poplar and the Isle of Dogs claimed the tower interfered with their television reception from 1989 until a relay transmitter was established in April 1991. In separate proceedings, residents sued LDDC for excessive dust caused by construction of the Limehouse Link Road between 1989 and 1993. The plaintiffs included owners, tenants, and family members without proprietary interests in the affected properties.

Procedural History

Judge Havery QC held that interference with television reception was capable of constituting actionable nuisance, but that only persons with exclusive possession could sue in private nuisance. The Court of Appeal reversed both holdings, deciding that television interference from a building was not actionable but that occupation as a home provided sufficient standing to sue.

Issues

1. Whether interference with television reception caused by the presence of a building is capable of constituting an actionable private nuisance.

2. Whether a person must have an interest in property to sue in private nuisance and, if so, what interest suffices.

Judgment

Television Interference

The House of Lords unanimously held that interference with television reception caused by the mere presence of a building is not actionable as private nuisance. Lord Goff explained that a landowner is entitled to build on his own land, and the mere presence of a building interfering with a neighbour’s enjoyment does not give rise to liability. There must generally be something emanating from the defendant’s land. Lord Hoffmann emphasised that at common law anyone may build upon his land, and restrictions only arise through easements or planning controls. An easement for television reception cannot exist because the burden would be on a large and indefinite area.

Standing to Sue in Private Nuisance

By a 4-1 majority (Lord Cooke dissenting), the House held that only persons with a right to exclusive possession of land can sue in private nuisance. Lord Goff stated that nuisance is a tort directed against the plaintiff’s enjoyment of rights over land, requiring a proprietary or possessory interest. The decision in Khorasandjian v Bush was overruled insofar as it held that a mere licensee could sue in private nuisance. Lord Hoffmann explained that the correct measure of damages is diminution in the amenity value of the land, not personal discomfort to individuals present.

Dissent

Lord Cooke of Thorndon dissented on standing, arguing that occupation of property as a home should suffice. He relied on Canadian and American authorities, international human rights standards, and academic opinion supporting a broader approach for interference with amenities of the home.

Implications

This case definitively established that private nuisance protects interests in land, not personal comfort. It confirmed that only those with proprietary or possessory interests can sue, excluding spouses, children, and lodgers without such interests. The decision clarified that a building’s interference with views, light (absent easement), or television signals is not actionable merely because of its presence. Planning controls, not tort law, provide the appropriate mechanism for addressing such interference. The case remains the leading authority on standing in private nuisance and the limits of actionable interference.

Verdict: Appeals allowed in part. The House of Lords held that interference with television reception by the presence of a building is not capable of constituting actionable private nuisance. The cross-appeals on standing were allowed, restoring Judge Havery's declaration that a right to exclusive possession is required to sue in private nuisance. Khorasandjian v Bush was overruled on this point.

Source: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14