Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris (t/a Soundstar Studio) [2004] EWCA Civ 172

Mr Morris's recording studio suffered electromagnetic interference from Railtrack's TI 21 signalling system, affecting electric guitars with amplifiers. The Court of Appeal allowed Railtrack's appeal, holding that the interference at 80 metres distance was not reasonably foreseeable, defeating the nuisance claim.

Facts

Mr Morris operated a recording studio at 339 Whitehorse Road, Croydon, approximately 80 metres from the London to Brighton railway line. In October 1994, Railtrack (having taken over from British Rail) completed installation of TI 21 track circuits on the line near Mr Morris’s premises. Shortly thereafter, Mr Morris experienced electromagnetic interference affecting electric guitars played with amplifiers in his studio, causing noise that rendered recordings unsatisfactory. Over two years, he lost customers and claimed financial losses exceeding £60,000.

Background to the Interference

The TI 21 track circuit system generated magnetic fields from ‘tuned zones’ stretching approximately 20 metres along each track. While the field strength was modest at Mr Morris’s distance, the particular frequency was picked up by electric guitar pickups feeding amplifiers. British Rail had received complaints in 1991 from tenants with musical rehearsal studios directly under railway arches, but these premises were immediately beneath the tuned zones where electromagnetic fields were far stronger.

Issues

The Court considered three main issues: (1) whether electromagnetic interference could constitute actionable nuisance; (2) whether Mr Morris’s use of electric guitars with amplifiers constituted an abnormally sensitive activity excluded from nuisance protection; and (3) whether Railtrack could reasonably have foreseen that installing the TI 21 system would cause interference to premises as distant as Mr Morris’s studio.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed Railtrack’s appeal. Lord Phillips MR, delivering the lead judgment, noted that while electromagnetic interference was capable of constituting nuisance in principle, foreseeability was the critical issue.

Foreseeability

The joint expert, Dr Kadhim, had stated that Railtrack could not reasonably have foreseen that track circuits would cause problems at 60-70 metres distance. The court accepted this evidence, noting that approximately 3,200 TI 21 circuits had been installed on the Southern Region with only one complaint apart from those directly under the arches.

The Recorder had relied on Mr Bradley’s 1991 report about interference to under-arch tenants, but the Court of Appeal held this could not support a finding that interference at 80 metres was foreseeable. The interference experienced by under-arch tenants occurred in a magnetic field many times greater than that at Mr Morris’s premises. A reference in the report to ‘one tenant, who is not near a Tuned Zone’ experiencing ‘a small amount of interference’ related to premises still underneath the arches, not comparable to Mr Morris’s situation.

Modern Law of Nuisance

Buxton LJ provided analysis of the modern law of nuisance, noting that following Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather and Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC, the test involves reasonableness and foreseeability rather than particular rules such as ‘abnormal sensitiveness’. However, he emphasised that what must be foreseen is relevant damage to this plaintiff or a category of persons into which he falls.

Implications

This case establishes important principles regarding electromagnetic interference as potential nuisance. The Court accepted that electromagnetic interference could constitute actionable nuisance but emphasised that foreseeability remains essential. The case demonstrates that practical experience of interference in one location (directly beneath railway tracks) does not necessarily make interference at distant locations foreseeable. The judgment also suggests that regulatory frameworks may be more appropriate than nuisance law for resolving competing claims regarding electronic interference, given the complexity of modern electronic equipment susceptibility.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Recorder's order was set aside and Mr Morris's claim was dismissed. The Court held that Railtrack could not reasonably have foreseen that the TI 21 track circuit installation would cause electromagnetic interference to premises 80 metres from the railway line.

Source: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris (t/a Soundstar Studio) [2004] EWCA Civ 172