Data source
Date of text
11 Aug 2011
Seat of court
London
Original language

English

Type of text
National - higher court
Reference number
[2011] EWCA Civ 987
Court name
Court of Appeal
Justice(s)
Mummery, Munby and Hedley.
Sources
InforMEA

In the present case the claimant company manufactured mobile phone parts and the defendant company manufactured ingredients for curry in adjoining premises. The claimant brought an action for nuisance by smell. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal noted that both parties were conducting their businesses on a light industrial estate with the benefit of planning permission. At paragraph 40 of his judgment, with which the other members of the Court agreed, Mummery LJ said this: First, the deputy judge was entitled to attach significance to the location of the premises and the character of the Crownhill Industrial Estate. The light industrial character of that Estate covered Peak's food additive manufacturing, which was permitted on both planning grounds and by the user covenant in its lease. The activities in Unit 20 were carried on without objection or intervention on environmental or health and safety grounds by the relevant statutory authorities. While those matters are obviously not conclusive against the existence of a private nuisance, they are relevant indicators of the levels of discomfort and inconvenience caused by the smell. The grant and implementation of planning permission may affect the character of an area. The character of the area played a critical part in the final decision in this case.