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
Printer Friendly Version
The 2014 decision in the Supreme Court case of Fen Tigers (Coventry v Lawrence  UKSC 13, All ER (D) 245 (Feb)) set the course for damages to be more readily awarded in lieu of an injunction. However, on 17 March 2016, judgment was handed down in Peires which shows achieving an injunction may not be impossible against a noisy neighbour.
In Peires, the claimant’s home was located next to an aerodrome. Noise from a particular helicopter manoeuvres (landing on a slope) interfered with the enjoyment of the claimant’s land. The case attracted attention in the national press in part because the ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ presenter, Tess Daly was apparently put off buying the claimants’ house because of the noise.
The claimant brought a claim in nuisance and Peter Smith J was prepared to order an injunction limiting the times and specifying the location at which the defendant could carry out the particular manoeuvres complained of. In this case it was important that:
Peter Smith J said if he were called to do so he would assess the damages that he thought were payable, but that he did not consider the issue arose here. Other comments he makes are noteworthy, ‘in nuisance cases like this, there must be give and take’ and ‘the Claimant’s approach has been one of reasonable restraint the Defendant’s approach regrettably has not been the same’.
The Peires case is very recent and it may be appealed. It is nonetheless interesting to see a noise nuisance case so soon after Fen Tigers (itself a noise nuisance case) and the approach a judge may take to awarding an injunction. The moral of the story is to make sure you act reasonably when faced with a claim for injunctive relief, which is an equitable discretionary remedy.
The views expressed by our interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234