Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor (No 2)

Summary

Trinity Term
[2014] UKSC 46
On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 26

JUDGMENT

Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) (No 2)

before

Lord Neuberger, President
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption

Lord Carnwath

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

23 July 2014

Heard on 12 May 2014

Appellant Stephen Hockman QC William Upton (Instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law)		1st Respondent Robert McCracken QC Sebastian Kokelaar (Instructed by Pooley Bendall Watson)

		2nd Respondent Edward Denehan Giselle McGowan (Instructed by Hewitsons LLP)

LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption Agree)

Introductory

This judgment is concerned with a number of points which arise from this Court's decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 WLR 433. By that decision, we held that the occupiers of a Stadium, David Coventry trading as RDC Promotions, and a Track, Moto-Land UK Limited, were liable in nuisance to the appellants, Katherine Lawrence and Raymond Shields, who were the owners and occupiers of a residential bungalow, Fenland, some 850 yards away. The nuisance arose from the use of the Stadium for speedway racing and other motorcar racing, and the use of the Track for motorcycle racing and similar activities.

A summary of the factual and procedural history is set out in paras 7-27 of our earlier judgment. The appellants brought their proceedings not only against Mr Coventry and Moto-Land ("the respondents"), but also against their respective landlords, Terence Waters and Anthony Morley and a predecessor landlord ("the Landlords"). The effect of our decision was to reverse the Court of Appeal and to restore the trial judge's order of 4 March 2011, which was based on his finding that the respondents were liable in nuisance but the Landlords were not so liable. By the time of the trial, Fenland was unoccupied owing to a fire, and it remains in its fire-damaged state to this day.

The order made by the Judge included (i) an injunction against the respondents limiting the levels of noise which could be emitted from the Stadium and the Track "to take effect on 1 January 2012 or, if [earlier, when] Fenland is again made fit for occupation", (ii) permission to the parties "to apply to vary the terms of this injunction not earlier than 1 October 2011", (iii) awards of damages of some £10,350 against each of the two respondents, (iv) a provision dismissing the claims against the landlords, and (v) a direction that the respondents pay 60% of the appellants' costs, to be subject to detailed assessment.

Subject to further arguments, the effect of our earlier decision is to restore the orders for an injunction and for damages referred to in items (i) and (iii) above, and also the order for costs recorded in item (v). Four further or consequential issues now arise, and they are as follows. First, in relation to item (i), should the injunction be suspended until Fenland is rebuilt? The second issue, which arises out of item (ii), is when…

JUDGMENT