Coventry v Lawrence (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46

Facts

  • The claimants resided near a speedway stadium and motocross track, experiencing noise that disrupted their use of their property.
  • The defendants operated these sites for many years; the claimants moved into the area with knowledge of the activities.
  • At first instance, damages were awarded to the claimants alongside an injunction restricting noise levels.
  • The Court of Appeal replaced the injunction with damages.
  • The dispute reached the Supreme Court to determine if substituting damages for an injunction was appropriate, and to re-examine the application of the Shelfer criteria in light of current law.

Issues

  1. Whether courts should grant damages in lieu of an injunction in nuisance claims, and under what conditions this is appropriate.
  2. Whether the Shelfer criteria for granting damages instead of injunctions remain valid and, if so, how flexibly they should be applied.
  3. Whether proportionality and the Human Rights Act 1998 require adjustment of traditional remedies for private nuisance.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that damages can be awarded in place of an injunction in appropriate circumstances in nuisance cases.
  • The Court affirmed that the Shelfer criteria are not rigid rules but should be applied flexibly according to the case's context.
  • The principle of proportionality, especially under the Human Rights Act 1998, must be considered when balancing the interests of claimants and defendants.
  • The injunction initially granted would have imposed excessive hardship on the defendants and risked closing their business; damages were determined to be the fairer remedy.

Legal Principles

  • The Shelfer criteria provide guidance for when damages may substitute for an injunction but must be interpreted with flexibility, not as strict rules.
  • Courts must assess proportionality, ensuring remedies do not produce excessive hardship relative to the harm suffered.
  • The Human Rights Act 1998 requires balancing Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
  • Judicial discretion must be exercised to ensure outcomes are fair and take account of contemporary social and legal contexts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46 restated and modernised the Shelfer principles, underscoring the importance of proportionality and human rights, and clarified that damages may be granted instead of injunctions in private nuisance where such remedies better balance the interests of all parties.

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