Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:10:07 +0100

From: Andrew Tettenborn

Subject: Nuisance Case

On what basis could the hypothetical defendant, rather than the activists, be liable? He didn't ask them to demonstrate: he has no control over them (unless you say he adopts the nuisance by not getting an injunction to remove them, which seems pretty tendentious). I'd be surprised to see a court saying that an activity otherwise lawful and inoffensive to reasonable people in the area becomes a nuisance merely because of the likelihood that others might take offence at it.

Andrew

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:58:17 -0400
From: Jason Neyers
Subject: ODG: Nuisance Case

Dear Colleagues:

Has anybody ever come across a nuisance case where the alleged nuisance was not something emanating from the defendant's land but rather the noise/conduct of third parties who were protesting against the use of the defendant's land (such as animal rights activists and a testing facility)?

Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 / +44-7729-266200 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)

Snailmail: School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

Exeter Law School homepage: http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/
My homepage: http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/staff/tettenborn/index.html.

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>