Search results
Christie v Davey High Court Citations: [1892 C 3775]; [1893] 1 Ch 316. Facts The claimant lived next door to the defendant. The defendant was a music teacher. Their houses were joined by a single wall, and the claimant could sometimes hear the music lessons and the defendant practising her singing. The claimant complained that…
Christie v Davey (1893) 1 Ch 316. The claimant was a music teacher. She gave private lessons at her home and her family also enjoyed playing music. She lived in a semi-detached house which adjoined the defendant’s property. The defendant had complained of the noise on many occasions to no avail.
Christie v Davey, December 7, 1892. General Overview. Everybody needs good neighbours. At what point the law can intervene when neighbours are not good is a matter of some importance; this case clarified the law in a way that has settled millions of disputes since. The case concerned a property at in Brixton.
The defendant is acting maliciously: Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316. The fact that the claimant ‘came to the nuisance’ (i.e. that they were aware of the defendant’s activities before they moved in) is not relevant: Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 WLR 20.
In the case of Christie v. Davey, (1893) 1 Ch 326 (327), plaintiff and defendant, both were neighbours. The plaintiff and their family were fond of music. They used to sing and play various instruments. It disturbed the defendant. He started hammering the wall, beating trays, shrieking and whistling.
Facts: A farm got planning permission to be extended, but the smell was very bad and the neigbour sued. Held : The court held that living next to a farm you have to expect some smell but this goes beyond reasonable – so despite having planning permission this was still a nuisance.
Apr 29, 2022 · Christie v Davey: 1893. A music teacher gave lessons at home and from time to time held noisy parties. He complained of nuisance when his neighbour retaliated by blowing whistles, banging trays and trying to disturb the music. Held: The defendant’s actions were deliberate and unreasonable.
