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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal