Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co
1895 · [1895] 1 Ch 287
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Vibrations and noise from the company's works caused a to a tenant of a pub, and damaged the building.
- Issue
- Should the court grant an , or award damages instead?
- Held
- The Court of Appeal granted an injunction. A. L. Smith LJ gave the working rule that damages may be given instead of an injunction where the injury is small, can be valued in money, can be compensated by a small payment, and an injunction would be oppressive.
- Principle
- A claimant who proves a continuing wrong is entitled to an injunction. Damages in lieu are the exception.
- Why it matters
- Its guidelines are still the starting point, though later courts apply them flexibly.
Words and Latin in this note
- Prima facie
- At first sight: evidence strong enough to prove a point unless it is answered or contradicted. Open the note.
- Nuisance
- Unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land (private nuisance) or with the rights of the public (public nuisance). Open the note.
Also on Lanbuk
- Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co in Lanbuk on the Law of Torts
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.