Land

Statutory works - injurious affection of neighbouring property - compensation - whether extending to damage for noise, dust and vibrationWildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council:HL (Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough): 22 June 2000

The claimants, the owners of a hotel adjacent to land compulsorily acquired for a road scheme, claimed compensation under s.10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 on the ground that the work, by restricting access to the hotel and causing continual noise, dust and vibration, had 'injuriously affected' their land.The Lands Tribunal, on preliminary points of law, held that the noise, dust and vibration could not found a claim under s.10, since it was not direct physical interference with the land; but compensation for the damage from the restriction to access, which as direct interference was capable of falling within s.10, was payable even though it had only been temporary.The Court of Appeal, by a majority, upheld the finding as to noise, dust and vibration but reversed the finding on temporary damage.

The claimants appealed.Joseph Harper QC and Barry Denyer-Green (instructed by Caplans, Harrow) for the claimants.

David Mole QC and Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by Solicitor, Harrow London Borough Council) for the council.Held, that s.10 required that the work complained of had been carried out under a lawful exercise of a statutory power and, but for that statutory protection, would have been an actionable nuisance; that an action for nuisance from building work could arise either for a direct interference with land by the work, or for personal discomfort causing non-direct damage to the amenity of the land, provided such personal discomfort was the result of the work having been conducted without reasonable consideration for neighbouring properties; that it followed that the claim for the non-direct damage caused by noise, dust and vibrations was outside the ambit of s.10, since if the work had been conducted with reasonable consideration of neighbouring properties it would not be actionable at common law and if carried out without reasonable regard for others would not be a lawful exercise of a statutory power; but, allowing the appeal in part, that compensation was payable for the reduction in the letting value of the land which had arisen from the temporary obstruction of access, since damages for injurious affection were payable irrespective of whether the damage was caused by permanent or temporary interference with property.

(WLR)