header-logo header-logo

20 March 2015 / Andrew Butler
Issue: 7645 / Categories: Features , Public , In Court
printer mail-detail

Winners & losers

nlj_7645_andrew-butler

Andrew Butler assesses the impact of Lawrence —one year on

A year after the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Lawrence & another v Fen Tigers Ltd and others [2014] AC 822, [2014] UKSC 13 how have the radical changes foreshadowed by that case played out?

The decision in Lawrence

To recap— Lawrence was a case in which the claimant householders brought an action in nuisance against various entities involved in the management of a motocross track in their Suffolk locality. The judge at first instance held that the activities constituted a nuisance and granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that the judge had gone wrong by assessing the character of the area without having regard to the offending activity. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and reinstated the decision of the judge.

Why is Lawrence important?

Lawrence gave rise to a number of important questions, including:

  • whether there could be a prescriptive right to cause a nuisance;
  • whether and to what extent the notion of “coming to a nuisance” gives rise
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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll