Overhanging extractor fan
The trial judge held that an overhanging extractor fan was not causing a trespass because it did not cause a substantial interference with the claimants land. On appeal this was held to be wrong. .. if a defendant interferes with a claimants airspace, this amounts to trespass except that this conduct would not constitute trespass if the interference were at such great height - such as by high flying aircraft - that it does not interfere with the claimants airspace. As Scott J explained if somebody erects on his own land a structure, part of which invades the air space above the land of another, the invasion is trespass. (para 34). (The argument in the citation is a bit circular: An interference is not an interference if it does not interfere because it is too high! But we know what the court means).
The real question for the trial judge to determine was whether or not an injunction should be granted or damages awarded in lieu. The case was referred back to the judge to carry out that exercise.
Laiqat v Majid [2005] EWHC 1305; [2005] 26 EG 130.
QBD (Leeds) (Silber J) 22/6/2005
Trespassing livestock
Where cattle belonging to a neighbour had eaten the Claimants trees they did not have to make do with 25,000 damages representing diminution in value of his property awarded by the trial judge. They were entitled to the reasonable cost of replacing the trees with young trees, which would cost 44,500, because that was what a reasonable person would do if laying out his own money. There was also an increase in general damages for loss of amenity and in aggravated damages because there was a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home; that the defendants were well aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.
Bryant v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762
Back to top
www.propertylawuk.net
|
|