## Facts

- Mr. and Mrs. Cocking, the claimants, lived adjacent to a property owned by Mr. Eacott.
- Individuals used Mr. Eacott’s property for unauthorised activities, generating excessive noise and disturbance.
- The claimants alleged that the disturbances significantly interfered with their enjoyment of their home.
- Mr. Eacott, as the occupier, was aware of the unauthorised activities, including car repairs and social gatherings, but did not take effective steps to stop them.
- The claimants argued that Mr. Eacott’s inaction amounted to permitting the nuisance, attributing liability to him as occupier.

## Issues

1. Whether an occupier can be liable for nuisance caused by third parties using their property.
2. Whether Mr. Eacott had sufficient control over the property and failed to take reasonable steps to stop or prevent the nuisance activities.
3. Whether permitting or failing to abate third-party nuisance constitutes actionable liability in private nuisance.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Eacott, as occupier, was liable for the nuisance resulting from unauthorised activities on his property.
- The court found that Mr. Eacott had permitted the nuisance through explicit or implicit consent to the activities.
- It was determined that mere awareness of the nuisance was insufficient; failure to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the interference constituted liability.
- The decision reaffirmed the occupier’s duty to proactively address nuisances, especially where they have the ability to control the use of their property.

## Legal Principles

- An occupier can be liable for nuisance caused by third parties where they have knowledge of the nuisance and the means to control or prevent it.
- Liability arises not only from direct acts, but also from permitting or failing to take reasonable steps to abate a nuisance.
- The principles in Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880 and Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485 were reaffirmed, requiring proactive action from occupiers with sufficient control.
- Property rights are not absolute and must be exercised with regard to the rights of neighbouring occupiers.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that occupiers may be liable in nuisance for third-party actions if they permit or fail to prevent unreasonable interference with neighbours, reinforcing the need for proactive property management and balancing property rights with the rights of others.


Cocking v Eacott [2016] EWCA Civ 140