Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 46

D owned and leased a stadium used for stock car and banger racing, greyhound racing and speedway racing. Since January 2006, C occupied a bungalow 860 metres away from the stadium, and otherwise surrounded by agricultural land. In April, C complained to the council regarding the noise from the stadium, and threatened D with proceedings. In December 2007, the council served noise abatement notices, requiring D to mitigate the noise emanation. These ‘attenuation works’ were carried out (later than should have been) by January 2009. In 2008, C issued proceedings for an injunction to restrain D for nuisance alleging that the stadium activities constituted a nuisance (individually, or cumulatively). C maintained this contention following the completion of the attenuation works. D filed a joint Defence in December 2009 denying nuisance.

• Was D liable for his tenant’s nuisance on the grounds that D had authorised it?
• Was the nuisance an inevitable consequence of the letting, and if so was D liable for knowing how the stadium would be used?

Finding for D, that the nuisance was not an inevitable or almost certain consequence of the letting. D knowing how his tenants would use the premises, and that the use had resulted in nuisance, did not constitute participation. D had not actively participated in the nuisance. D doing nothing to stop or discourage the nuisance could not amount to participation. Except for very unusual circumstances, authorisation could not be inferred by D’s failure to mitigate the nuisance. Furthermore, D attempting to fight off allegations of nuisance against his tenant did not amount to participation. There is no question of D being liable to C for the nuisance on the ground that it was an inevitable, or nearly certain, consequence of the letting. The intended uses of the stadium properties were well known to D and those uses have in fact resulted in nuisance, but that is not enough to render the D liable. It is accepted that those uses could be carried out by the tenants without causing a nuisance to C based on previous uses.

A landlord is not liable for a tenant's nuisance merely because the landlord knows of it or can attempt to stop it. Liability may arise through authorisation or participation, including where nuisance is an inevitable consequence of the letting, but that basis must be established.

This is the later Coventry judgment, [2014] UKSC 46, addressing landlord responsibility. It should not be confused with the earlier decision on noise nuisance, planning permission and remedies. The distinction between owning land and participating in an interference is central. Cocking provides a useful contrast because its bare licence left possession and control with the owner. An answer should therefore identify the defendant's actual relationship with the activity rather than infer responsibility from ownership alone.