A PRECEDENT CASE: HUNTER V CANARY WHARF LTD (1997)

Study Unit A PRECEDENT CASE: Hunter V Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)

(A) Number One Canada Square is a tower building in London holding a prominent position in the city’s skyline. It was built by Canary Wharf Limited for commercial, retail and residential purposes and was completed in 1990. However, the fact that it is situated less than ten kilometres from the BBC’s primary television transmitter led to the building’s involvement in a legal claim that resulted in the creation of an original precedent under the common law. The case that gave (1) ….. to the precedent was Hunter and others v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997).

The claimant, Ms Hunter, in an action supported by hundreds of local residents, complained that the erection of One Canada Square (2) ….. a nuisance in that the building blocked her analogue TV signal so as to limit her rights of reasonable comfort and convenience in the occupation of her own land. The issue was actually quickly resolved in April 1991, when a ‘broadcast relay’ was installed nearby to transmit a television signal into the affected area. Nevertheless, the claimant alleged that One Canada Square had interrupted her television reception and in addition to her claim for nuisance, (3) ….. compensation for her wasted television licence fee for the period of time that her TV signal had been impaired.

Upon several appeals by the claimants, the case eventually reached the House of Lords. The Law Lords identified the issue requiring clarification was whether it would be fair in the circumstances to (4) ….. further, quite (5) ….. restrictions upon landowners with regard to their right to build on their own land. In handing down judgment, Lord Goff stated, “As a general rule, a man is entitled to build on his own land, though nowadays this right is inevitably subject to our system of planning controls. Moreover, as a general rule, a man’s right to build on his land is not restricted by the fact that the presence of the building may of itself interfere with his neighbour’s (6) ….. of his land. The building may spoil his neighbour’s view, see Attorney-General v Doughty (1752), and, in the absence of an easement, it may restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour’s land, see Bland v Mosely (1587). I find myself to be in agreement on this point with Pill L.J., who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, when he expressed the opinion that no action (7) ….. in private nuisance for interference with television caused by the mere presence of a building. That a building may have such an effect has to be accepted. If a large building is proposed in a neighbouring area, it will usually be open to local people to (8) ….. the possibility of television interference with the local planning authority at the stage of the application for planning permission. For these reasons I would (9) ….. the appeal of the plaintiff’s action on this issue.”

The House of Lords, at that time the highest court in the UK, held (10) ….. that such interference could not amount to an actionable nuisance and that the nuisance was equivalent to loss of a view, or of a prospect, both of which had never previously been actionable. According to the principles of the common law this precedent became binding on all lower courts.