Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 (HL)

Facts

• Residents of the Isle of Dogs brought claims of private nuisance against Canary Wharf Ltd and the London Docklands Development Corporation.
• The claims arose from the construction of One Canada Square, a 250-meter tower, which disrupted television reception for nearby residents and generated excessive dust.
• The broadcast interference was due to the proximity of the new building to the Crystal Palace transmitter, the main BBC transmitter for the area.
• Interference persisted until a broadcast relay was installed in April 1991.
• Some claimants were licensees without property rights in the affected properties, including spouses, children, relatives, lodgers, au pairs, and employees.
• The core issues included whether interference with television reception was actionable in nuisance and whether a claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land.

Issues

1. Whether interference with television reception constitutes an actionable nuisance in law.
2. Whether only individuals with a proprietary interest in the affected land have standing to bring a claim in private nuisance.
3. Whether licensees, without legal title to property, can bring claims for nuisance.
4. Whether the tort of nuisance is concerned with interference with the land itself or with the comfort and wellbeing of its occupiers.

Decision

• The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that interference with television reception did not constitute an actionable nuisance.
• It was held that private nuisance is a tort against land, requiring the claimant to have a proprietary interest in the affected property.
• Licensees and other non-proprietary occupants were found to lack standing to make claims in nuisance.
• The Court clarified that common law does not recognize a right to a television signal unless specifically provided through agreements or easements.
• The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Khorasanjian v Bush, reaffirming that nuisance is not a tort against the person.
• The concept that only landowners and tenants with legal interests may claim for nuisance was reinforced.

Legal Principles

• Private nuisance is actionable only by those with a proprietary interest in land; mere occupancy or license is insufficient.
• Interference with television reception is not, in itself, actionable in nuisance absent a recognized legal right.
• The tort of nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land rather than the personal comfort of individuals residing on it.
• Damages in nuisance relate to the affected land, not the number or identity of occupants.
• The overruling of Khorasanjian v Bush restored the focus of nuisance law on property interests.
• The scope of nuisance encompasses emanations from land, including physical substances, noise, and, where a defendant’s land is used as a base for interference, as clarified in subsequent cases such as Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC.

Conclusion

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd firmly established that only those with a legal interest in land may sue in private nuisance and that interference with television signals is not actionable, affirming nuisance as a tort restrictive to protection of property rights rather than personal inconvenience.