Disrepair – Liability in tort
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [ 997] AC ; [ 997] 2 All ER 42 ; ( 998) 0 HLR 409; [ 997] En LR 488; 24 April 997, HL Disruption to television reception not a nuisance; exclusive possession of land necessary to sue in nuisance.
Residents claimed that the construction of the Canary Wharf Tower interfered with their television reception. The House of Lords held that (a) the creation or presence of a building between a television transmitter and other properties was not capable of constituting an actionable private nuisance and (b) ordinarily, only a person with a right to exclusive possession of land may bring an action in private nuisance.
Southwark LBC v Mills; Southwark LBC v Tanner; Baxter v Camden LBC [200 ] AC ; [ 999] WLR 9 9; [ 999] 4 All ER 449;  LGR 8; [ 999] 4 EG 79; (2000) 2 HLR 48;  L&TR 9; ( 999) Times 22 October
Normal use of residential flat cannot be a nuisance to neighbours; landlord cannot be liable in nuisance for conduct of neighbouring tenants, which is not a nuisance on their part Court of Appeal
Adams v Rhymney Valley DC (200 ) HLR 44 , CA
Council not in breach of duty of care in installing windows according to standards at time of installation
Boateng v Camden LBC ( 999) HLR 4 ; May 998 Legal Action 22, CA
Landlord not liable for burns to baby caused by hot pipes
Boldack (minor) v East Lindsey DC ( 999) HLR 4 ; May 998 Legal Action 22, CA
Landlord not liable in negligence for injury to non-tenants
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the plaintiff was forced to rely on negligence.
Although the Court of Appeal held that the upstairs tenant owed a duty of care to the downstairs tenant, it was not prepared to find any breach of that duty unless it could be shown that the circumstances should have alerted the upstairs tenant to the possibility of a blockage. In the absence of any such circumstances (such as a previous incident), no liability arose from a first, unexpected overflow.