Laws v Florinplace [1981] 1 All ER 659
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:04:28 UTC
Defendants opened a sex shop with signs and Plaintiffs (residents of local area) claimed actionable nuisance due to their offence at the shop being present.
Court allowed Plaintiff’s claim.
Vinelott J
Held that an actionable nuisance extends to cover cases where use of property is such an affront to the reasonable susceptibilities of ordinary people that it constitutes interference with reasonable domestic enjoyment of property.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Plaintiff was breeding foxes and put up a sign advertising the fact. Defendant, who was trying to sell the neighbouring space, thought that this would deter buyers. Therefore when Plaintiff refused t...
Southwark LBC v Mills
Plaintiff sued their landlord, Defendant, for having failed to provide effective insulation against the day-to-day noises of their neighbours (whose noise was no more than ordinary and reasonable). C...
Kennaway v Thompson
Plaintiff had built himself a house by a lake and Defendant started organising water skiing, etc., causing noise that made life intolerable for Plaintiff. CA granted an injunction to limit the activi...
Halsey v Esso
The plaintiff's clothing and car experienced damage due to exposure to a harmful substance. This damage to the plaintiff's belongings significantly harmed their property, classifying it as a private...
Coventry v Lawrence (No 2)
The claim made by the respondents against the landlords for nuisance is rejected since the landlords did not endorse or engage in the nuisance. For liability in a nuisance case, the landlords must ei...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.