Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
When will a landlord be liable for its tenant's nuisance. The Supreme Court decided a landlord was not liable as it had neither authorised nor participated in the nuisance.
Coventry and others v Lawrence and another (No 2)  UKSC 46,  All ER (D) 226 (Jul)
This judgment covered a number of points arising from the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Coventry v Lawrence  UKSC 13,  2 All ER 622, in which it decided the occupiers of a stadium and a track were liable in nuisance to the owners and occupiers of a residential bungalow, Fenland, 850 yards away. The nuisance arose from the use of the stadium for speedway racing and other motorcar racing and the use of the track for motorcycle racing and similar activities.
The owners of Fenland brought their proceedings not only against the occupiers of the stadium and track, but also against the occupiers' current landlord and a predecessor landlord. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision was to reverse the Court of Appeal's decision and restore the trial judge's order, which was based on his finding that the occupiers of the stadium and track, but not the landlords, were liable in nuisance. The trial judge's decision had been upheld by the Court of Appeal on the ground that there was no nuisance and so no consideration was given to whether the judge's reasons for rejecting the claims against the landlords were justified.
However, now that the Supreme Court had held that the occupiers of the stadium and track were liable in nuisance, the question arose whether the judge was right in holding that their landlords were nonetheless not liable.
By the time of the trial, Fenland was unoccupied due to a fire and is still fire-damaged today.
The order made by the trial judge included:
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234