Southwark London BC v Mills and Others; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council [1998]

Southwark LBC v Mills – Some of the tenants of a block of 19 flats (which was built in 1919) complained that they could hear their neighbours in the ordinary instances of domestic life and that the council were in breach of the covenant of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their premises. The tenants complained to an arbitration tribunal, asking that the council should be required to soundproof the flats, so that the sounds of ordinary domestic life in neighbouring flats were reduced.

The tribunal found that the council was in breach of the covenant, and ordered them to carry out effective soundproofing of the flats.

The council’s appeal to the High Court was refused, but the Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal.

Baxter v Camden London Borough Council – A tenant entered into a weekly tenancy for a flat owned by the council, which was in a converted house. The conversion had been carried out at a time when there were not building regulations requiring sound installation between dwelling-houses, and the work done had reduced the sound insulation between the floors of the house. The tenant brought proceedings in the county court, alleging that the council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in the tenancy agreement because the inadequate sound insulation caused the ordinary activities of the tenant;s neighbours in the flats above and below her to be clearly heard. She contended that this was a nuisance at common law, and the landlord was responsible for it. The court dismissed the tenant’s claim, as did the Court of Appeal.

On appeal:
HELD: The House of Lords dismissed the appeals of both tenants, holding that the ordinary use of residential premises without more could not amount to nuisance. Owners or occupiers of adjoining property were not liable to each other if the wall between their premises was not an adequate sound barrier and the sound in one property substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of another. The councils were not obliged to soundproof the properties or to end the complaints, because the complaints did not constitute nuisance.

The covenant for quiet enjoyment is prospective, so does not apply to things done before the tenancy was granted. The landlords’ obligations to ensure quiet enjoyment applied to the properties that were the subject-matter of the tenancy as they were when the tenancies were granted. A tenant who takes the premises in a defective state is not entitled to complain about their condition, so the landlord cannot be liable. The complaints were due to noise that had not changed since the tenancy was granted, so the tenants were bound to accept that as an incident of having 'chosen' to take the tenancy.

Citation: Southwark London BC v Mills and Others; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council [1998]
[1999] 4 All ER 449