Search results

This article continues to assess the role of private nuisance as a common law tool for environmental protection, independent of the wider regulatory controls. It evaluates the decision in Cambridge Water and asks the question whether it would stand as good law before the Supreme Court. It concludes with illustrating the enduring role of the injunction in environmental protection and its capacity to coerce restorative environmental justice. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper is predominately a classic doctrinal article as it is principally library-based analysing both primary sources (that both pre- and post-date the modern law reporting system) and secondary sources whilst engaging in leading academic commentary.

Nuisance developed to a point in the nineteenth-century where a simple form of the tort was visible. At that juncture, it had an “unchanged” essence that emanated from a strict liability reciprocal identity. Recent judicial activity has visibly adulterated that identity: this article casts doubts on juridical restrictions that assess the conduct of defendants to assess liability. It is suggested that it may not withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court if, and when, they are tested. In light of that analysis and considering the potency of injunctions, it is argued that nuisance law potentially has a positive future in environmental protection.

Owing to the elected research approach, the scope of the article has been necessarily concentrated on succinct areas of a broader subject and viewed in a manner that works alongside the regulatory regime.

This paper recognises that nuisance law has a positive future in environmental protection especially if the courts are willing to embrace the historical paradigm which has served the common law in this field broadly well for hundreds of years.

This article aims to assess the role of private nuisance as a common law tool for environmental protection, independent of the wider regulatory controls. It evaluates specific areas of the tort that are theoretically unresolved in order to ascertain the potential future role it may play before highlighting the capacity for injunctions to coerce restorative environmental justice.

The paper is predominately a classic doctrinal article as it is principally library-based analysing both primary sources (that both pre- and post-date the modern law reporting system) and secondary sources whilst engaging in leading academic commentary.

Nuisance developed to a point in the nineteenth century where a “theory of nuisance” emerged, which did not tolerate injury to health or the property of another. Recent judicial activity has visibly adulterated that theory: this article casts doubts on juridical restrictions regarding health and property suggesting they may not withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court if, and when, they are tested.

This paper recognises that nuisance law has a positive future in environmental protection provided that the courts are willing to embrace the historical paradigm which has served the common law in this field broadly well for hundreds of years.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and examine the impact of s.158 of the Planning Act 2008 in the UK, which awards the defence of statutory authority to developers of major infrastructure projects in private nuisance actions. The paper will assess the extent to which this provision could broaden the scope of the existing defence and consider the practical implications of the new measures.

The paper analyses existing case law, and the historic evolution of the UK doctrine of statutory authority, in order to assess the potential judicial approach to the defence in infrastructure planning decisions.

Although s.158 of the Planning Act 2008 appears to further broaden the opportunity for the statutory immunity defence to be used, certain historical restrictions will affect its application. In awarding the defence, the judiciary have taken into account a variety of considerations such as the specificity of the location, the inevitability of the nuisance, the effect on statutory provisions, and the bearing that negligence has on the defence. These exceptions prove that there is no such thing as “blanket immunity”, and developers may still be held responsible for their un‐neighbourly conduct.

The scope of the protection conferred on developers of major infrastructure projects can appear confusing and could potentially create the assumption that statutory authority will act as a total defence to any actions. Developers, and their advisers, will need to be aware of the aforementioned exceptions before seeking to rely on the statutory authority defence.

This paper proposes that the doctrine of statutory authority has gained a newly significant status and uses recent legislation and a comprehensive overview of the existing case law to demonstrate these findings.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.