Dobson & Ors v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Anor

Dobson & Ors v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Anor

An award of damages in nuisance to a property owner is relevant to the question of whether an award of damages is necessary to afford just satisfaction under Article 8 ECHR to a non-property-owning member of the same household; it is not automatic that such a member is entitled to separate damages under the HRA, and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellants: Dobson and Ors; Respondent: Thames Water Utilities Limited and Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judge’s answer to Issue 9 reversed; appeal on Issue 10 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Damages, Article 8 ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, Remedies for Nuisance, Standing in Nuisance Claims
Tort Law Human Rights Law Private Nuisance Damages Article 8 ECHR Human Rights Act 1998 Remedies for Nuisance Standing in Nuisance Claims

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dobson and Ors

Appellants

Thames Water Utilities Limited and Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for nuisance awarded to property owners preclude separate damages under Article 8 ECHR for non-property-owning household members
  2. 2 Whether damages for nuisance can be 'topped up' under the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Relevance of alternative remedies to the necessity of damages under section 8(3) HRA 1998

Ratio Decidendi

An award of damages in nuisance to a property owner is relevant to the question of whether an award of damages is necessary to afford just satisfaction under Article 8 ECHR to a non-property-owning member of the same household; it is not automatic that such a member is entitled to separate damages under the HRA, and the necessity for such an award depends on all the circumstances, including the remedy already granted to the property owner.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judge’s answer to Issue 9 reversed; appeal on Issue 10 dismissed.

Orders

  • An award of damages in nuisance to a property owner is relevant to whether a non-property-owning household member requires damages under Article 8; necessity for such an award depends on all circumstances.
  • It is most improbable that damages at common law will be exceeded by any award for infringement of Article 8 to the same claimant; normally, no additional award is necessary.