AndAndthethe VerdictVerdictis...is...
TheThe CourtCourt ruledruled inin favourfavour ofof thethe defendant.defendant. BancksBancks waswas entitledentitled toto terminateterminate thethe contractcontract duedue toto AssociatedAssociated NewspapersNewspapers LtdLtd havinghaving breachedbreached thethe contract.contract.
H E L D
Her claim in nuisance failed. As her husband was only a tenant of the property, he did not have an ‘interest’ in the land, and as such could not sue in nuisance. The claimant herself could not sue in nuisance because she was only a licensee and as such could not have an ‘interest’ in the land affected by the alleged nuisance and so had no cause of action in this case. No principle of law could be formulated to the effect that a person who has no interest in property, nor any right of occupation in the proper sense of the term, can maintain an action for a nuisance. Therefore, the claimant’s claim failed and she had no cause of action at all. No mere licensee could sue in nuisance.
