Readers will recall that for a landlord to be liable for a
nuisance committed by its tenant, the landlord must have authorised
the nuisance, either by participating actively or directly in the
nuisance or by letting the property in circumstances where there
was a very high degree of probability that the letting would result
in the nuisance (Lawrence v Coventry  UKSC 46). The
Court of Appeal has made it clear in Cocking v Eacott and
Waring  EWCA Civ 140 that the situation is quite
different where the nuisance is committed by a licensee.
Mrs Waring owned, maintained and paid the bills for a property
which was occupied by her daughter, Ms Eacott, who did not pay any
rent and had no formal agreement in place with her mother. Mr and
Mrs Cocking lived in the property adjacent and had complained of
nuisance in the form of shouting and barking since 2004. To put
this in context, Ms Eacott was in 2011 subject to an ASBO for the
shouting (although her mother was unaware of this until 2011).
In February 2012, the Cockings commenced proceedings against Mrs
Waring and Ms Eacott claiming damages for nuisance. This led to a
breakdown in the relationship between the mother and daughter,
which culminated in Mrs Waring serving a notice to quit upon her
daughter and a few months later she obtained a possession order for
the property, although she chose not to enforce it. The Cockings
offered to settle if Mrs Waring permanently evicted her daughter
from the property but this offer was rejected and the case went to
At first instance, having found that the arrangement between Mrs
Waring and her daughter amounted to a bare licence, the Judge
ordered Mrs Waring to pay GBP 1,000 and Ms Eacott to pay GBP 3,500
in damages to the Cockings for the nuisance caused by the barking
(but not the shouting as it had stopped following the ASBO). Mrs
Waring and Ms Eacott were also found to be jointly and severally
liable for the Cockings' costs. Mrs Waring appealed this
The issues on appeal were, as a licensor:
Could Mrs Waring be liable for a nuisance caused by her
Should she be ordered to pay all of the Cockings' costs on
a jointly and severally basis with her licensee?
With regards to the first point, the Court found that Mrs Waring
had been correctly regarded as the occupier of the property and as
such was responsible for the nuisance even if she did not directly
cause it. The relevant test is set out in Sedleigh Denfield v
O'Callagan & Other  A.C. 880: an owner may be
regarded as an occupier of property for the purposes of liability
for nuisance if he has allowed others to live or undertake
activities on his land. In this instance, Mrs Waring was in control
and possession of the property throughout the period in which her
daughter resided there and was aware of the nuisance which she had
not done anything to abate.
The Court also upheld the costs order as Mrs Waring was the only
person who could ultimately abate the nuisance by removing her
daughter from the property.
This case highlights the difference in position between the
liability of a landlord and that of a licensor in relation to
nuisance. Landlords should therefore take care to abate a nuisance
committed by an occupier soon after becoming aware of it where
there is a licence in place but also if there is any doubt as to
whether the agreement in place is a licence or a tenancy.
It is also worth noting Arden LJ's comment that if a
landlord is subject to a repairing covenant to inspect and clean
the drains on the demised property at regular intervals and a
nuisance is caused by the tenant's use of the drains, the
landlord may be able to escape liability even if there is clear a
tenancy in place if the landlord has failed to comply with its
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that the costs of claims consultants assisting in adjudication enforcement proceedings can be recovered as disbursements, assuming that those consultants acted in the adjudication.
The requirements of a valid payment notice issued under a construction contract were considered in a previous update: "A Payment Notice? Be Clear?" with reference to the case of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Ltd  ("Surrey and Sussex") a decision of the English High Court.
VL's appeal was against a decision by LBC on a review of an earlier refusal to provide VL and her family with housing on the grounds that she was not homeless, or threatened with homelessness, finding she had accommodation available to her in Portugal.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).