A council landlord could not be liable in nuisance to a tenant for disturbance caused by another tenant, as the person to be sued in nuisance is the occupier of the property from which the nuisance emanated.

A council tenant brought action against the council as his landlord, as the council would not terminate the occupation of the tenant in flat above him whose behavour was a nuisance to neighbouring tenants. The tenant above him had a mental disorder, and the police received frequent complaints about this tenant from the residents of the other council housing and advised the council that she should be in a care home. However, the council thought that she should be in the community.

The claimant sought an injunction and damages against the council, contending that they were liable for the behaviour of the other tenant because they had known of the nuisance and had adopted it by failing to abate it. The council applied for the claim to be struck out under the Civil Procedure Rules on the ground that it must fail. The county court

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

Owner of land was liable for nuisance arising when water from the owner’s reservoir flooded into a mine on neighbouring land.

The defendant occupied land near to where the claimant operated a coal mine, and the seams of the mine extended under the defendant's land. The seams had been previously worked but the tunnels and shafts had been cut off and forgotten about. The defendant obtained approval to construct a reservoir to provide water for his mill. The water from this reservoir permeated the old coal shafts beneath and flooded the plaintiff's mine. The court found