- Cited — Marc Christopher Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council 2023-02-03
“…In dealing with this second principle Etherton MR had identified that in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655 Lord Lloyd had said that nuisances are of three kinds, encroachment, direct physical injury to land and interference with quiet enjoyment. And of course the Re…”
- Followed — Global 100 Limited v Maria Laleva 2021-12-03
“…e purely in contract. Thus a licensee is not entitled to bring a claim in nuisance (which is an interference with the possession of land): Hunter v Canary Wharf[1997] AC 655. Nor can a licensee bring a claim in trespass: Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121. If a licensee cannot complain of trespass, it follows that he is not entitled …”
- Cited — Jalla & Ors v Shell International Trading And Shipping Company & Anor 2021-01-27
“…In Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Limited [1997] AC 655, the claim in nuisance concerned interference with television reception caused by the erection of buildings at Canary Wharf. In summarising the relevant princi…”
- Cited — Fearn & Ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery 2020-02-12
“…Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655…”
- Cited — Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor 2018-07-03
“…the amenity of the land, that is to say the right to use and enjoy it, which is an inherent facet of a right of exclusive possession: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 687G—688E (Lord Goff citing F.H. Newark, ‘The Boundaries of nuisance’ (1949) 65 LQR 480), 696B (Lord Lloyd), 706B, 707C (Lord Hoffmann) and 723D-E (Lord Hope)…”