Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions) & Anor v Lawrence & Ors (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 26 (27 February 2012)

Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions) & Anor v Lawrence & Ors (Rev 1) [2012] EWCA Civ 26 (27 February 2012)

The noise from the Stadium and Track was an established and dominant feature of the locality due to long-standing planning permissions and lawful use; the judge erred in excluding this from the locality's character. As a result, the activities did not constitute a nuisance in law, and the claim must be dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 26
Parties
Appellant/2nd Defendant: David Michael Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions); Appellant/3rd Defendant: Moto-Land UK Limited; Respondent/claimant/appellant on Cross Appeal: Katherine Lawrence; Respondent/claimant/appellant on Cross Appeal: Raymond Shields; 4th Defendant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Terence Raymond Waters; 6th Defendant/respondent on Cross Appeal: James Edwards Waters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Planning Permission and Nuisance, Character of Locality, Easements and Prescription, Noise Regulation
Tort Law Planning Law Environmental Law Private Nuisance Planning Permission and Nuisance Character of Locality Easements and Prescription Noise Regulation

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Michael Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions)

Appellant/2nd Defendant

Moto-Land UK Limited

Appellant/3rd Defendant

Katherine Lawrence

Respondent/claimant/appellant on Cross Appeal

Raymond Shields

Respondent/claimant/appellant on Cross Appeal

Terence Raymond Waters

4th Defendant/respondent on Cross Appeal

James Edwards Waters

6th Defendant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether noise from motor sports activities with planning permission constitutes a private nuisance
  2. 2 Effect of planning permission and certificate of lawful use on the character of the locality and nuisance liability
  3. 3 Whether claimants can claim nuisance after moving into an area with established noisy activities

Ratio Decidendi

The noise from the Stadium and Track was an established and dominant feature of the locality due to long-standing planning permissions and lawful use; the judge erred in excluding this from the locality's character. As a result, the activities did not constitute a nuisance in law, and the claim must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals of the second and third defendants are allowed on the first ground; claimants' action is dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal by claimants against fourth and sixth defendants dismissed.