Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14 is a leading House of Lords decision in English tort law, particularly concerning the requirements for bringing an action in private nuisance and the scope of actionable nuisance itself. The case is notable for clarifying the nature of the rights protected by the tort of nuisance and for establishing clear limitations on who may bring a claim and what sorts of interferences with property can give rise to liability.
Facts of Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, the defendants, Canary Wharf Ltd, undertook the construction of a major commercial tower known as One Canada Square in the Docklands area of East London. The tower, completed in November 1990, was 250 metres tall and covered an area of 50 metres squared. Its construction site was situated less than ten kilometres from the BBC’s principal television transmitter at Crystal Palace.
Prior to the construction of the tower, television reception in the affected area, the Isle of Dogs, was reportedly good. However, once the tower was erected, it caused significant interference with television signals for several hundred neighbouring residents, as the large metallic structure physically obstructed the line of sight between the transmitter and the residents’ aerials. The interference persisted until April 1991, when a broadcast relay was installed at Balfron Tower to restore the affected reception.
The claimants in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd brought proceedings alleging private nuisance, arguing that the interruption to their television reception deprived them of the enjoyment of their property and seeking compensation for wasted television licence fees during the period of impairment. A total of 690 claims were made against Canary Wharf Ltd in relation to television reception interference, and a further 513 claims were brought against the London Docklands Development Corporation for dust emanating from the construction site. Not all claimants were property owners or tenants; some were family members or mere licensees.
Legal Issues
The House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd was called upon to decide two key issues:
- Whether interference with television reception caused by a building’s construction could amount to an actionable nuisance in English law; and
- Whether it was necessary for a claimant to have a proprietary interest in the affected land in order to bring a private nuisance action, or if mere residence (such as being a family member or licensee) would suffice.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd Judgment
The House of Lords, in a unanimous decision, held against the claimants on both principal issues.
First, the Lords decided that the construction of a building which interfered with television reception could not, as a matter of law, amount to an actionable nuisance. The House drew a parallel between the loss of a television signal and the loss of a view or prospect. It had long been established at common law that there is no right to the continued enjoyment of a particular view, nor to the flow of air or light, absent an easement.
Thus, interference with television reception, which did not involve a direct physical invasion or encroachment upon a claimant’s land, could not ground an action in nuisance. The court specifically observed that, as a general rule, anyone is entitled to build upon their land as they see fit, subject only to restrictions by covenant or the acquisition of an easement for the benefit of neighbouring land.
Second, the House reaffirmed the requirement that only those with a proprietary interest in the affected land—such as freeholders or tenants with exclusive possession—are entitled to bring an action in private nuisance. The Lords expressly rejected the reasoning in the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Khorasandjian v Bush, which had allowed a claim in nuisance by a person lacking any property interest. The House thus restored the position set out in Malone v Laskey, under which a mere licensee or family member residing in the property does not have standing to sue in nuisance.
Reasoning in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, Lord Lloyd identified three principal categories of private nuisance: (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour’s land; (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour’s land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of his land. The claim in this case was in the third category. However, Lord Lloyd explained, not every inconvenience or loss of amenity constitutes a legal nuisance. The interference must be substantial and must materially interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence, applying the test set out in Walter v Selfe.
Lord Goff referred to established authority that mere obstruction of a view, light, or air by the erection of a building is not an actionable nuisance in the absence of a legal right such as an easement. He remarked, “more is required than the mere presence of a neighbouring building to give rise to an actionable private nuisance.” Both Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope were clear that the right to receive television signals was not one recognised at common law. Therefore, interference with such a signal could not be treated as actionable in nuisance.
In terms of who could sue, the Lords considered the desirability of allowing claims from licensees or family members, as had been permitted by the Court of Appeal. However, they concluded that this would constitute an unjustified extension of the tort of nuisance, which had always been focused on the protection of proprietary interests. Lord Goff was critical of the academic support for such an extension, emphasising the lack of substantive analysis for departing from long-established principles.
The Lords also weighed the policy implications of recognising a right to uninterrupted television reception. Lord Hoffmann pointed out that granting such a right would create a potentially vast and unpredictable liability for developers, as they could be sued by any number of claimants for relatively minor interferences. He further noted that affected individuals had recourse through the planning process, where objections could be raised before a development was approved, and technical solutions to reception problems could be implemented.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd stands as a reaffirmation of traditional private nuisance principles, holding firm against an expansion of liability for mere interferences with amenities. The decision provides clear guidance on who may bring a claim in nuisance and the type of harm that the law recognises, shaping the development of nuisance law in the context of modern urban living.
