Nuisance by noise transmission
Language: English Series: Contract Journal ; 431(6552) 23 November 2005, 30(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Outlines the facts of, and comments upon, "Stannard v Charles Pitcher Ltd and Others", (QBD [2002] BLR 441). S sought a mandatory injunction requiring works to be carried out to the flat above, of which A was the lessee, to minimise noise nuisance. 'Held' that whilst flats in urban areas involve the tolerance of some level of noise, the impact noise in this case was above modern standards of acceptability and inconsistent with the provisions of the lease. In relation to nuisance, the reasonableness test applied. In this case, the standard of comfort previously enjoyed by S, and the standards envisaged by the lease which were available to the majority of tenants, were significant and important factors in deciding what was reasonable. A mandatory injunction was therefore granted.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L132015 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 132015-1001 |
Outlines the facts of, and comments upon, "Stannard v Charles Pitcher Ltd and Others", (QBD [2002] BLR 441). S sought a mandatory injunction requiring works to be carried out to the flat above, of which A was the lessee, to minimise noise nuisance. 'Held' that whilst flats in urban areas involve the tolerance of some level of noise, the impact noise in this case was above modern standards of acceptability and inconsistent with the provisions of the lease. In relation to nuisance, the reasonableness test applied. In this case, the standard of comfort previously enjoyed by S, and the standards envisaged by the lease which were available to the majority of tenants, were significant and important factors in deciding what was reasonable. A mandatory injunction was therefore granted.