Lippiatt and another v South Gloucestershire County Council (31 March 1999) Court of Appeal

Lippiatt claimed damages from South Gloucestershire County Council for acts of nuisance carried out by travellers while they were occupying the neighbouring land owned by the Council. The travellers had trespassed, dumped rubbish and tethered goats on Lippiatt's land and had also prevented access to that land. The Council was aware of the presence of the travellers and had even provided water and toilet facilities. The Council contended, following the decision in Hussain v Lancaster City Council ((1998) 77 P & CR 89), that the claim in nuisance had no prospect of success, and that the statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The judge accepted these submissions, struck out the statement of claim and entered judgement for the Council. Lippiatt appealed. The court, in allowing the appeal, said that there was no rule of law which prevented the owner or occupier of land from being held liable in the tort of nuisance by reason of the activities of his licensees which took place off his land and on the land of the claimant. The court distinguished the present case from Hussain v Lancaster City Council. In that case shopowners had claimed in nuisance against the local housing authority whose tenants occupied the neighbouring housing estate. In Hussain v Lancaster City Council the local housing authority was not held liable. The court held in that case that the disturbance was a public nuisance for which the individual perpetrators could be held liable and that their conduct was not in any sense linked to, nor did it emanate from, the homes where they lived. In the present case the allegation was that the travellers had been allowed to congregate on the Council's land and that they had used it as a base for the unlawful activities on Lippiatt's land of which Lippiatt, as neighbour, complained. It was at least arguable that such unlawful activities could give rise to liability in nuisance on the part of the Council and accordingly the court held that the claim should not have been struck out.
(All England Law Reports, [1999] All ER (D) 364)