Pusey & Anor v Somerset County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 988 (19 July 2012)

Pusey & Anor v Somerset County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 988 (19 July 2012)

The frequency, duration, and nature of incidents associated with the lay-by did not amount to unreasonable interference with the claimants' use and enjoyment of their property. The evidence showed incidents were relatively infrequent and not excessive in context. Lawful use of the highway by the public, including parking and stopping, cannot constitute actionable nuisance absent real interference as judged objectively.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 988
Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Edward Pusey; Claimant/appellant: Cherry Lynne Pusey; Defendant/respondent: Somerset County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Highway Authority Liability, Statutory Duties, Neighbourhood Character
Tort Law Property Law Private Nuisance Highway Authority Liability Statutory Duties Neighbourhood Character

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Edward Pusey

Claimant/appellant

Cherry Lynne Pusey

Claimant/appellant

Somerset County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of a highway lay-by adjacent to claimants' property constituted an actionable private nuisance
  2. 2 Whether the frequency and nature of incidents (noise, urination, anti-social behaviour) amounted to unreasonable interference with claimants' enjoyment of property
  3. 3 Whether lawful use of the highway by the public can constitute a nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

The frequency, duration, and nature of incidents associated with the lay-by did not amount to unreasonable interference with the claimants' use and enjoyment of their property. The evidence showed incidents were relatively infrequent and not excessive in context. Lawful use of the highway by the public, including parking and stopping, cannot constitute actionable nuisance absent real interference as judged objectively.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed