Cocking v Eacott [2016] EWCA Civ 140

Facts

  • Mr. and Mrs. Cocking, the claimants, lived adjacent to a property owned by Mr. Eacott.
  • Individuals used Mr. Eacott’s property for unauthorised activities, generating excessive noise and disturbance.
  • The claimants alleged that the disturbances significantly interfered with their enjoyment of their home.
  • Mr. Eacott, as the occupier, was aware of the unauthorised activities, including car repairs and social gatherings, but did not take effective steps to stop them.
  • The claimants argued that Mr. Eacott’s inaction amounted to permitting the nuisance, attributing liability to him as occupier.

Issues

  1. Whether an occupier can be liable for nuisance caused by third parties using their property.
  2. Whether Mr. Eacott had sufficient control over the property and failed to take reasonable steps to stop or prevent the nuisance activities.
  3. Whether permitting or failing to abate third-party nuisance constitutes actionable liability in private nuisance.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Eacott, as occupier, was liable for the nuisance resulting from unauthorised activities on his property.
  • The court found that Mr. Eacott had permitted the nuisance through explicit or implicit consent to the activities.
  • It was determined that mere awareness of the nuisance was insufficient; failure to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the interference constituted liability.
  • The decision reaffirmed the occupier’s duty to proactively address nuisances, especially where they have the ability to control the use of their property.

Legal Principles

  • An occupier can be liable for nuisance caused by third parties where they have knowledge of the nuisance and the means to control or prevent it.
  • Liability arises not only from direct acts, but also from permitting or failing to take reasonable steps to abate a nuisance.
  • The principles in Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880 and Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485 were reaffirmed, requiring proactive action from occupiers with sufficient control.
  • Property rights are not absolute and must be exercised with regard to the rights of neighbouring occupiers.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that occupiers may be liable in nuisance for third-party actions if they permit or fail to prevent unreasonable interference with neighbours, reinforcing the need for proactive property management and balancing property rights with the rights of others.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal