## Facts

- The case concerned a dispute between the operators of a speedway stadium and nearby residential property owners.
- The claimants alleged that noise and disturbance from the stadium constituted a private nuisance interfering with their enjoyment of land.
- The defendants argued their activities were lawful and longstanding, with no prior complaints for many years.
- At issue was whether an injunction should be granted to stop the nuisance or whether damages would suffice as a remedy.
- The claim considered the context of property rights, land use, and competing private and public interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should grant an injunction to restrain the nuisance or award damages as an alternative remedy.
2. How principles of proportionality, fairness, and public interest should inform the exercise of discretion in nuisance cases.
3. The relevance of factors such as the duration of the defendant’s use and the claimants’ knowledge of the activity when they acquired their property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that remedies in nuisance are discretionary and not governed by rigid rules.
- The established principles from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] provide guidance but are not inflexible.
- In this case, an injunction was not considered proportionate, given the long-standing operation of the stadium and the knowledge of its existence by the property owners.
- Damages were awarded instead of an injunction, reflecting consideration of proportionality and fairness.
- The court emphasized the role of public interest, particularly where the defendant’s activities have significant social or economic value.

## Legal Principles

- Remedies for private nuisance are discretionary, with courts considering whether to award damages or grant injunctions based on case-specific circumstances.
- The guidelines from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co are factors, not strict rules, in determining whether damages may be awarded in lieu of an injunction.
- Principles of proportionality and fairness are central to the exercise of discretion in nuisance cases.
- Courts must balance private property rights with broader public interests, especially where activities provide social or economic benefits.
- The context, including the duration of activity, awareness by parties, and broader implications, is important in shaping the appropriate remedy.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 clarified that remedies in private nuisance are to be determined flexibly, taking into account proportionality, fairness, and public interest, rather than following rigid rules, thus permitting damages in lieu of an injunction where appropriate.
