Presence, or a feature of the building? The essence of the complaint isn't that the building is there, but that the owner acquiesces in its being fitted with windows that discommode others. If it wasn't fitted with those windows and simply threw an enormous shadow that made it impossible to grow anything worthwhile in people's gardens, it's much more doubtful whether it would be a private nuisance.

Andrew

 On behalf of Mark Wilde:

 

Dear all

 

I thought that this news item on the BBC might amuse the nuisance anoraks amongst us. A new glass office block has been acting like a huge parabolic mirror and concentrating reflected sunlight on the street causing heat damage to property and general discomfort to those in the vicinity. Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood [1984] 1 NZLR 525 springs to mind. A rare example of the fact that in some cases a nuisance can arise from the mere presence of a building as opposed to any activity conducted within it. I think this is why Lord Lloyd referred to it in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998] 1WLR 434.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23950011

 

 

Regards

 

Mark Wilde (Reading University)

 

--
--
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435