References: [1847] 4 CB 783, (1847) 136 ER 715, [1846] EngR 391, (1846) 2 Car and K 257, (1846) 175 ER 106
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to become a nuisance, and it is entirely at the option of the tenants so to use them or not, and the landlord receives the same benefit whether they are used or not, the landlord cannot be made responsible for the acts of the tenants.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 357, (2001) EGCS 4, (2001) LGR 228, [2001] 33 HLR 56)
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . . - Cited – Smith v Scott ChD ([1973] Ch 314, [1972] 3 All ER 645, [1972] 3 WLR 783)
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . . - Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC))
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . . - Cited – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 360 (QB), [2011] 4 All ER 1314)
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . . - Appeal from – Rich v Basterfield ([1847] EngR 693, Commonlii)
Although the owner of property may, as occupier, be responsible for injuries arising from acts done upon that property by persons who are there by his permission, though not strictly his agents or servants, such liability attaches only upon parties . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 08 March 2019
Ref: 186071
The post Rich v Basterfield: 5 Feb 1846 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.