Cases - Butcher Robinson & Staples Ltd v London Regional Transport
Record details
- Name
- Butcher Robinson & Staples Ltd v London Regional Transport
- Date
- (2000)
- Citation
- 79 P & CR 523
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light
- Summary
-
The claimants brought an action against the defendant in private nuisance and negligence for disturbance, noise and vibration. The claimants were a number of companies, all separate legal entities, which were 100% owned subsidiaries of a company called Chapter Group plc (CG). CG owned the freehold of 2 properties, which were affected by works for the Jubilee Line extension carried out by the defendant over a four-year period. The claimants all occupied CG's premises. There were no leases or licences between CG and the companies. There was a trial of a preliminary issue as to whether the claimants had sufficient proprietary interest in the property to maintain an action in nuisance or negligence. The claimants argued that they should be considered as tenants or licensees with exclusive possession of parts of the premises, which resulted in them collectively having exclusive possession of the whole of the premises.
The arrangements as to occupation of the premises involved reallocation of rooms from month to month and a lack of clarity as to which parts of the property were allocated to which claimant at any particular time. The judge held this did not give rise to rights of exclusive possession, whether by tenancy or licence that were enforceable at law. Even if the claimants had had the right to exclusive possession of some parts of the premises, these parts did not make up the whole of the premises as there were common parts, vacant parts and the Chairman's office which were excluded from the claimants' possession. Applying the principles set out in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997), the judge held that an action in private nuisance only extended to a claimant who had a right to exclusive possession of the land, that the claimants did not have exclusive possession and, therefore, had no sufficient interest in the land to bring an action in private nuisance.