Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13

Facts

  • The case concerned a dispute between the operators of a speedway stadium and nearby residential property owners.
  • The claimants alleged that noise and disturbance from the stadium constituted a private nuisance interfering with their enjoyment of land.
  • The defendants argued their activities were lawful and longstanding, with no prior complaints for many years.
  • At issue was whether an injunction should be granted to stop the nuisance or whether damages would suffice as a remedy.
  • The claim considered the context of property rights, land use, and competing private and public interests.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an injunction to restrain the nuisance or award damages as an alternative remedy.
  2. How principles of proportionality, fairness, and public interest should inform the exercise of discretion in nuisance cases.
  3. The relevance of factors such as the duration of the defendant’s use and the claimants’ knowledge of the activity when they acquired their property.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that remedies in nuisance are discretionary and not governed by rigid rules.
  • The established principles from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] provide guidance but are not inflexible.
  • In this case, an injunction was not considered proportionate, given the long-standing operation of the stadium and the knowledge of its existence by the property owners.
  • Damages were awarded instead of an injunction, reflecting consideration of proportionality and fairness.
  • The court emphasized the role of public interest, particularly where the defendant’s activities have significant social or economic value.

Legal Principles

  • Remedies for private nuisance are discretionary, with courts considering whether to award damages or grant injunctions based on case-specific circumstances.
  • The guidelines from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co are factors, not strict rules, in determining whether damages may be awarded in lieu of an injunction.
  • Principles of proportionality and fairness are central to the exercise of discretion in nuisance cases.
  • Courts must balance private property rights with broader public interests, especially where activities provide social or economic benefits.
  • The context, including the duration of activity, awareness by parties, and broader implications, is important in shaping the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 clarified that remedies in private nuisance are to be determined flexibly, taking into account proportionality, fairness, and public interest, rather than following rigid rules, thus permitting damages in lieu of an injunction where appropriate.

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