An RAF base was set up to practice defence manoeuvres and the claimant said that the noise gave rise to a claim in nuisance and a breach of his Article 8 rights.
Plaintiff sought an injunction to stop Defendant from undertaking manoeuvres there.
Court awarded Plaintiff damages but did not grant an injunction.
Said that the public nature of the activities was a defence to otherwise actionable nuisances (provided no more was being done than was absolutely necessary) but that it could NOT be a defence where a claim under the ECHR/HRA might succeed.
Although the activity needed to continue in the public interest, Plaintiff should not have to bear the cost of the public interest and should therefore be given compensation, which would satisfy article 8 compliance requirements.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (70 pages) |
Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (10 pages) |
GDL Tort Law | Private Nuisance Notes (9 pages) |