Legal Research
Cases
Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor

Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor

Case [2015] UKSC 50 22 July 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Summary

Trinity Term
[2015] UKSC 50
On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 26

JUDGMENT

Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants)

before

Lord Neuberger, President
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Dyson
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

22 July 2015

Heard on 9, 10 and 12 February 2015

Appellants (Lawrence/Shields) Stephen Hockman QC Timothy Dutton QC William Upton Benjamin Williams (Instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law)		Respondent (David Coventry and Moto-Land UK Ltd) Robert McCracken QC Sebastian Kokelaar (Instructed by Pooley Bendall Watson)

		Intervener (Secretary of State for Justice) Tom Weisselberg QC Jason Pobjoy (Instructed by Government Legal Department)

		Intervener (Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK) Robert Weir QC Harry Steinberg Achas Burin (Instructed by Leigh Day)

		Intervener (The General Bar Council) Nicholas Bacon QC Dr Mark Friston Greg Cox (Instructed by Colemans CTTS)

		Intervener (The Law Society) Kieron Beal QC (Instructed by The Law Society)

LORD NEUBERGER AND LORD DYSON: (with whom Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath agree)

The factual and procedural background

This judgment is concerned with an attack on the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention") of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act"). The proceedings to which it relates have been the subject of two previous judgments of this court – [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822 and [2014] UKSC 46, [2015] AC 106. The fact that this is the third judgment of this court in this case is an unfortunate irony, as the issue which has to be addressed arises from the contention that the order for costs made against the respondents at first instance infringed article 6 of, and/or article 1 of the First Protocol to, the Convention, and considerable further costs have been incurred since then.

A detailed summary of the factual and procedural history is to be found in the first two judgments at [2014] AC 822, paras 2-27 and [2015] AC 106, paras 1-4. So far as relevant for present purposes, and at the risk of over-simplification, the facts are as follows.

The appellants, Katherine Lawrence and Raymond Shields, the owners of a residential bungalow in Mildenhall, Suffolk, brought proceedings for an injunction and damages based on the contention that the noise emanating from speedway and other motorsport activities, operated by David Coventry and Moto-Land UK Limited ("the respondents") on a stadium and track some 800 metres away, constituted a nuisance. After a trial lasting 11 days, HHJ Seymour QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found in favour of the appellants, awarding them damages and an injunction limiting the level of noise emanating from the stadium and track, against the respondents. He also dismissed the claim in so far as it had been brought against the respondents' landlords ("the landlords").

So far as the figures are concerned, the amount of damages awarded…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor

Details

Case: [2015] UKSC 50
Decision Date