Competing land uses: nuisance or negligence?

A nuisance claim may not always fly, but negligence could still offer a remedy, as Andrew Ross explains

The Court of Appeal has rejected a nuisance claim because falcon breeding was not a common and ordinary use of the land, but upheld a finding of negligence.
Claimants affected by neighbouring land use should consider pleading negligence alongside private nuisance where harm is foreseeable and avoidable.

A recent Court of Appeal decision concerning a dispute between the owners of a falcon breeding business and a neighbour who used his land for a scaffolding business and other activities has left claimants needing to consider whether, when making a claim in private nuisance, they should also claim in negligence (Thomas and another company v Nicholas and others [2026] EWCA Civ 847).

The background

Martin and Scott Nicholas who ran a falconry breeding business, Raptors of Penwith, brought a successful claim at first instance against Mr Barnes Thomas, alleging that the way he had run his scaffolding business and carried out works on his land caused nuisance and was negligent (see ‘Nuisance:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Competing land uses: nuisance or negligence?

Issue: 8176 / Categories: Features , Nuisance , Property

A nuisance claim may not always fly, but negligence could still offer a remedy, as Andrew Ross explains

The Court of Appeal has rejected a nuisance claim because falcon breeding was not a common and ordinary use of the land, but upheld a finding of negligence.
Claimants affected by neighbouring land use should consider pleading negligence alongside private nuisance where harm is foreseeable and avoidable.