Injunctions | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40–50 minutes
This Injunctions A-Level Law revision page explains the basic concept of an injunction and its role as a tort remedy. OCR H418 requires students to understand the basic concept of an injunction, rather than a detailed study of injunction procedure. Injunctions are particularly important in private nuisance because they can restrict continuing or future interference, rather than simply compensate a claimant financially. You will learn how to distinguish an injunction from compensatory damages [Lesson 140. Compensatory damages] and select the more appropriate remedy from a factual scenario.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the basic concept of an injunction.
Explain the role of an injunction as a tort remedy.
Explain how a prohibitory injunction can restrict continuing wrongful activity.
Distinguish an injunction from compensatory damages.
Identify factors which may influence the choice between damages and an injunction in private nuisance.
Select and justify an appropriate remedy from a factual scenario.
Revision Notes 📚
Injunctions A-Level Law revision overview
OCR places three areas within the remedies section of the law of tort:
compensatory damages
mitigation of loss
injunctions.
The guidance requires:
the basis of damages
the basic concept of mitigation
the basic concept of an injunction.
This wording gives you an important specification boundary.
You need to understand:
what an injunction does
when it might be useful
how it differs from damages
how to select it from scenario facts.
You do not need an extensive account of injunction procedure beyond the level supported by the OCR tort materials.
What is an injunction?
An injunction is a court order which can be used to control the defendant's conduct.
Within OCR tort materials, the principal form identified is a prohibitory injunction. OCR's 2022 mark scheme links prohibitory injunctions with:
Kennaway v Thompson
Coventry v Lawrence
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co.
A prohibitory injunction can prevent or restrict the defendant from continuing the activity responsible for the claimant's tortious interference.
The basic idea is:
Damages
→ compensate financially.
Injunction
→ controls what D may continue doing.
Simple example
A business repeatedly creates excessive noise late at night and this amounts to an actionable private nuisance.
Damages could compensate the claimant for harm already suffered.
However, if the noise is continuing every night, the claimant may also want the court to restrict the future activity.
That is where an injunction can become particularly useful.
Injunctions are forward-looking
One of the easiest ways to understand an injunction is to compare:
What has already happened?
with:
What will continue happening?
Harm already suffered
For past loss, damages may provide financial compensation.
Continuing or future interference
Where the wrongful activity is continuing, an injunction may control what happens next.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme illustrates this distinction clearly. In the Wizzaround private nuisance scenario, damages could compensate Leo for harm already suffered, while an injunction could limit the future activity at the go-kart track.
This gives you a very useful exam rule:
Past financial consequences often point towards damages. Continuing conduct may point towards an injunction.
The two remedies are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Prohibitory injunctions
OCR specifically identifies prohibitory injunctions in its private nuisance mark scheme.
A prohibitory injunction restricts the defendant from continuing particular conduct.
Example
Suppose an actionable nuisance is caused by:
loud machinery every night
floodlights operating until 2 am
repeated motor-racing activity
continuing excessive noise.
The court could potentially use an injunction to restrict the offending activity.
Depending on the circumstances, this may mean limiting:
particular hours
particular activities
the extent of the conduct producing the nuisance.
The important OCR-level idea is that an injunction can limit future activity rather than merely put a financial value on the claimant's inconvenience.
Kennaway v Thompson
Kennaway v Thompson is an important OCR authority for injunctions in private nuisance.
OCR identifies the case directly as authority for prohibitory injunctions.
For revision purposes, use Kennaway v Thompson to support the principle that an injunction can be used to restrict the future activity causing an actionable nuisance.
Exam use
If a scenario says:
"The activity is continuing and C wants it reduced or stopped."
you can write:
A prohibitory injunction may be appropriate to restrict the continuing nuisance, supported by Kennaway v Thompson.
You do not need to reproduce a lengthy account of the case facts unless a factual comparison genuinely helps your application.
Injunctions and private nuisance
Injunctions are especially important within the OCR topic of private nuisance.
OCR expressly requires students to understand the remedies available for private nuisance.
This was first introduced in private nuisance remedies [Lesson 128. Private nuisance: defences and remedies].
The remedies most relevant for the current specification are:
damages
injunctions.
Why an injunction fits private nuisance
Private nuisance often involves a continuing state of affairs, such as:
recurring noise
repeated vibrations
smoke or fumes
continuing interference with use and enjoyment of land.
Damages may compensate for loss, but payment alone might leave the claimant experiencing exactly the same nuisance tomorrow.
An injunction can instead address the continuation of the interference.
The 2022 OCR Wizzaround example
OCR's 2022 examination gives the clearest recent example.
Wizzaround Go-Karts:
operated in the countryside
expanded its activities
introduced floodlighting
introduced bigger and noisier adult go-karts
began operating during the week and at night.
Leo suffered from the continuing noise and lighting and could not sleep.
OCR's mark scheme concluded that, if Leo established private nuisance:
damages could compensate for harm already suffered, or potentially compensate in relation to an ongoing nuisance
an injunction could limit Wizzaround's future activity.
Why an injunction was relevant
The nuisance was not a single completed event.
It was:
continuous
ongoing
produced by activities which Wizzaround intended to continue.
An injunction could therefore address the source of the future interference.
Possible application language
A strong answer might say:
Because Wizzaround's nighttime activity is continuing and repeatedly interferes with Leo's sleep, a prohibitory injunction may be appropriate to limit the future operation of the go-kart track. Kennaway v Thompson supports the use of an injunction to restrict continuing nuisance activity.
That is much stronger than:
"Leo could get an injunction."
Damages versus injunctions
These remedies perform different functions.
Damages | Injunction |
Financial remedy | Court order controlling conduct |
Compensates the claimant | Restricts continuing or future activity |
Particularly relevant to harm already suffered | Particularly relevant where wrongful conduct is continuing |
Can compensate some ongoing nuisance under Coventry v Lawrence | Can limit future nuisance activity |
Studied fully in Lesson 140 | Focus of this lesson |
OCR's 2022 mark scheme recognises that both may potentially be relevant in a private nuisance claim.
Do not automatically choose one
A scenario may justify:
damages only
an injunction
potentially both.
Your task is to explain why the remedy fits the facts.
When damages may be more appropriate
Damages may be particularly useful where:
the harm has already occurred
there is a clear financial loss
the activity is no longer continuing
the court decides that financial compensation is more appropriate than restricting the activity.
The calculation of damages is covered fully in compensatory damages [Lesson 140. Compensatory damages].
Example
D negligently damages C's car in a one-off collision. The negligent driving has ended and C's financial loss is the cost associated with the damage.
This does not naturally call for an injunction controlling an ongoing activity.
Damages are the more obvious remedy.
📌 Exam technique: Do not recommend an injunction simply because the question asks about remedies. Identify what continuing conduct the injunction would actually restrain.
When an injunction may be more appropriate
An injunction becomes particularly relevant where:
liability has been established
the wrongful activity is ongoing
C wants future interference controlled
simply paying compensation would leave the nuisance continuing.
Example
A neighbouring venue creates an actionable private nuisance by playing extremely loud music until 3 am every night and intends to continue doing so.
Damages may compensate for past interference.
However, an injunction may be particularly useful because it can restrict the future operation causing the nuisance.
The court can limit activity rather than necessarily ending it entirely
OCR's 2022 application describes an injunction as being capable of limiting Wizzaround's future activity.
This is an important point.
An injunction does not always need to be imagined as:
"The entire business must close permanently."
A prohibitory injunction may restrict the aspect of the activity which creates the nuisance.
Example
Suppose the nuisance is caused specifically by:
machinery operating between midnight and 4 am.
The remedy might focus on preventing or restricting the problematic activity rather than necessarily banning every lawful daytime activity carried out by the defendant.
This makes injunctions potentially more flexible than students sometimes assume.
Coventry v Lawrence and the choice of remedy
Coventry v Lawrence is a central OCR authority when considering the relationship between damages and injunctions.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme states that after Coventry v Lawrence courts have wider discretion relating to the award of damages and identifies the case alongside injunction authorities.
This means you should avoid the oversimplified rule:
"If C proves private nuisance, C automatically receives an injunction."
The appropriate remedy depends on the circumstances.
The examination question
Ask:
Would it be more appropriate to control the continuing activity, compensate C financially, or potentially use both remedies?
Your conclusion should come from the facts.
Factors which may affect remedy selection
OCR materials identify two private nuisance arguments which, although they are not defences, may influence the choice of remedy:
coming to the nuisance
public benefit or social utility.
These were already studied in volenti and land-specific defences [Lesson 139. Volenti and land-specific defences].
This distinction is extremely useful in exams.
Coming to the nuisance
Suppose:
C knowingly buys a house beside an existing noisy activity.
Under private nuisance principles:
Coming to the nuisance is not a defence.
The defendant cannot automatically escape liability merely because C arrived later.
However, OCR's 2024 mark scheme states that coming to the nuisance may be considered when deciding whether an injunction or damages is the more appropriate remedy, referring to Coventry v Lawrence.
Correct exam reasoning
Do not write:
"C moved there afterwards, so the claim fails."
Instead:
"Coming to the nuisance does not defeat an actionable private nuisance, but the fact may influence the court when choosing between damages and an injunction."
That keeps liability and remedy separate.
Public benefit and social utility
A nuisance-causing activity may provide a significant public benefit.
For example, it might provide:
recreational facilities
useful community services
employment or other local benefits.
OCR is clear that public benefit is not a defence once an actionable private nuisance has been established.
However, it may influence the choice of remedy.
Relevant OCR authorities include:
Miller v Jackson
Adams v Ursell.
Example
A popular community activity has been found to constitute a private nuisance.
The defendant cannot simply say:
"Lots of people benefit, so there is no liability."
However, public benefit might be relevant when deciding whether:
the activity should be restricted by an injunction
damages should instead be awarded.
Exam distinction
Public benefit
→ not a defence.
But:
Public benefit
→ may influence remedies.
This is exactly the sort of distinction OCR rewards.
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co
OCR's 2022 mark scheme lists Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co as an authority relevant to prohibitory injunctions and the choice of remedy.
For this lesson, the important point is that Shelfer, alongside Coventry v Lawrence, can be used when discussing the court's choice between:
an injunction
damages.
Because OCR's current specification requires only the basic concept of an injunction, you do not need to turn this lesson into a detailed study of historical injunction tests.
Your revision priority should remain:
what an injunction does and when it is likely to be appropriate.
Liability and remedy must be kept separate
This distinction is central to the whole remedies topic.
Liability question
Has D committed a tort?
Defence question
Is there a defence which prevents or reduces liability?
Remedy question
What should C receive if the claim succeeds?
An injunction belongs in the third stage.
Example
An actionable private nuisance has already been established.
Do not then spend three pages reconsidering:
claimant's interest in land
unreasonable interference
locality
duration.
If the question asks only for remedies, apply the remedies.
OCR examiner reports repeatedly stress that students should respond to the wording of the question rather than writing everything they know about a broad topic.
Injunctions are not damages
This sounds obvious, but it is easy to blur the remedies in an application answer.
Damages
Do something for C:
give financial compensation.
Injunction
Does something to control D's future conduct:
prevent or limit the continuing activity.
Example
D's nightclub has caused an actionable nuisance for the past year and intends to continue operating extremely loud outdoor speakers every night.
Possible remedies:
Damages
→ compensate C for relevant past harm.
Injunction
→ restrict future use of the speakers causing the nuisance.
A strong answer explains these functions separately.
Injunctions and completed harm
An injunction is less naturally suited to a tort where the harmful conduct has already ended and there is nothing meaningful left to restrain.
Example
D negligently drops C's laptop, destroying it. The incident is complete.
The claimant requires compensation for:
the destroyed property
any other recoverable loss.
An injunction would not restore the laptop or provide financial compensation.
Damages are therefore the more obvious remedy.
This illustrates the importance of selecting the remedy based on the problem rather than mechanically listing every tort remedy.
Injunctions and continuing interference
Compare:
D operates machinery every night and the resulting noise constitutes an ongoing private nuisance.
The problem is still occurring.
C may therefore want more than money.
An injunction can address:
what D is allowed to continue doing in the future.
This is why injunctions are particularly closely associated with private nuisance within the OCR materials.
Selecting a remedy from a scenario
Use this sequence.
Step 1: Has liability been established?
If not, apply the tort first unless the question expressly tells you liability is established.
Step 2: Identify the claimant's problem
Is the claimant mainly suffering:
completed financial loss
physical injury
damaged property
continuing interference?
Step 3: Ask whether the wrongful activity is continuing
No
→ damages are likely to be the main remedy.
Yes
→ consider whether an injunction could usefully restrict the future activity.
Step 4: Consider whether damages are also relevant
The claimant may have already suffered loss even where the nuisance continues.
Step 5: In private nuisance, identify remedy factors
Does the scenario raise:
coming to the nuisance
public benefit/social utility?
Remember that these are not defences, but may affect remedy selection.
Step 6: State what the injunction would actually do
Do not simply write:
"C should get an injunction."
Instead:
"A prohibitory injunction could restrict D from continuing the nighttime activity responsible for the nuisance."
Step 7: Reach a supported conclusion
State:
"An injunction is likely to be particularly appropriate because the nuisance is continuing."
or:
"Damages are more appropriate because the harmful event is complete and there is no continuing conduct for an injunction to restrain."
Remedy selection table
Scenario clue | Remedy to consider | Why? |
One-off accident causing financial loss | Damages | Compensation addresses completed harm. |
Property already destroyed | Damages | The loss requires financial compensation. |
Continuing nighttime noise | Injunction | Can restrict future nuisance. |
Continuing vibrations from repeated activity | Injunction | Can limit continuing conduct. |
Past harm plus continuing nuisance | Damages and potentially injunction | Compensation deals with harm suffered while injunction controls future activity. |
Publicly useful activity causing nuisance | Remedy choice requires care | Public benefit does not defeat liability but may influence whether damages or injunction is appropriate. |
Claimant moved beside existing nuisance | Remedy choice requires care | Coming to nuisance is not a defence but may influence remedy selection. |
Worked application 1: ongoing noise
Maya successfully establishes private nuisance against Arena Ltd. Arena runs outdoor events beside Maya's house every Friday and Saturday until 3 am. The unreasonable noise has disturbed Maya for the past year, and Arena intends to continue operating the same schedule.
Liability
Private nuisance is already established.
There is no need to repeat the elements of the tort.
Past harm
Maya has already suffered a year of interference.
Damages may be relevant to compensate for harm already suffered.
Continuing activity
Arena intends to continue the same schedule.
This makes a prohibitory injunction particularly relevant.
Injunction
An injunction could restrict the future activity responsible for the nuisance.
Kennaway v Thompson provides relevant authority.
Conclusion
Maya may potentially receive damages relating to the harm already suffered and an injunction restricting the continuing activity.
The injunction is especially suitable because payment alone would not prevent Maya facing the same nuisance every weekend.
Worked application 2: completed negligence
Ava successfully sues Ben after Ben negligently crashes into her parked car. The accident happened once and Ben is not carrying out any continuing activity affecting Ava.
Harm
Ava's principal loss is the damage to her car.
Remedy
This points strongly towards compensatory damages.
Injunction
There is no obvious continuing tortious activity for a court order to restrict.
Conclusion
Damages are the more appropriate remedy.
An injunction would add little because the wrongful incident is already complete.
Worked application 3: public benefit
An actionable private nuisance has been established against Hillview Activity Centre because of continuing nighttime noise. The centre is heavily used by the local community and provides popular recreational facilities.
Liability
The centre cannot defeat liability simply by arguing that its activity has public benefit.
OCR recognises public benefit as a factor which may influence remedies, not as a defence.
Possible injunction
The continuing nature of the nuisance supports considering an injunction.
Public benefit
However, the public value of the centre may be relevant when determining the appropriate remedy.
The court may consider the choice between:
restricting the activity through an injunction
awarding damages.
Conclusion
Do not state automatically that the centre must close.
A stronger conclusion is:
Because the nuisance is continuing, an injunction is relevant, but the public benefit of the activity may affect the court's choice between an injunction and damages.
Worked application 4: coming to the nuisance
Willow Racing has caused an actionable private nuisance through excessive track noise. Ellie purchased the neighbouring house after the racing activity had begun. The excessive noise continues every weekend.
Liability
Ellie's later arrival does not automatically defeat the nuisance claim.
Coming to the nuisance is not a defence.
Remedy
However, Coventry v Lawrence recognises that the fact may be relevant when determining whether damages or an injunction is appropriate.
Conclusion
An injunction remains possible because the nuisance is continuing, but Ellie's decision to move beside the existing activity may influence the court's remedy decision.
Worked application 5: partial restriction is more suitable
A sports venue operates safely and quietly during the day but creates an actionable private nuisance when powerful outdoor speakers are used between midnight and 2 am.
The nuisance does not necessarily require an answer such as:
"Close the venue."
The offending activity is more specific.
A prohibitory injunction could potentially limit the future nighttime activity producing the nuisance.
This demonstrates the practical value of identifying exactly:
What conduct needs to be restrained?
A precise remedy application is stronger than simply naming the word "injunction".
Injunctions and mitigation
Do not confuse an injunction with mitigation of loss [Lesson 141. Mitigation of loss].
Mitigation
Concerns:
C's reasonable response after harm has occurred.
It can affect recoverable damages.
Injunction
Concerns:
a court order controlling D's conduct.
They are entirely different concepts.
A complete remedies problem might involve both, but each should be analysed separately.
Injunctions and contributory negligence
Similarly, an injunction is not a defence.
Contributory negligence [Lesson 138. Contributory negligence] concerns the claimant's contribution to their injuries and may reduce damages.
An injunction concerns the remedy available after liability has been established.
Keep the sequence clear:
Tort
↓
Defences
↓
Remedies
This structure will be consolidated in tort remedies problem solving [Lesson 143. Tort remedies problem solving].
What OCR expects you to know
The specification requires only the basic concept of an injunction.
Your high-priority revision knowledge is therefore:
an injunction is a court order controlling conduct
OCR particularly identifies prohibitory injunctions
an injunction can limit future or continuing nuisance activity
Kennaway v Thompson is a relevant authority
Coventry v Lawrence is important to the choice between damages and injunctions
damages can compensate harm already suffered
public benefit and coming to the nuisance may affect remedy selection even though they are not defences
the remedy must be applied to the facts.
Do not overload a basic injunction answer with material outside this specification focus.
A complete OCR application paragraph
A strong paragraph can follow this model:
Legal principle
A prohibitory injunction may be awarded to restrict continuing activity responsible for an actionable private nuisance, as illustrated by Kennaway v Thompson.
Factual link
Here, D intends to continue operating the noisy machinery every night, so the interference will persist unless D's future conduct is restricted.
Remedy comparison
Damages could compensate C for harm already suffered, but payment alone would not prevent the continuing nighttime nuisance.
Conclusion
An injunction limiting the future nighttime activity is therefore a particularly appropriate remedy.
That structure contains:
AO1
AO2
comparison
conclusion.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Injunction | A court order controlling what a defendant may do. | Select it where continuing tortious activity needs to be restricted. |
Prohibitory injunction | An injunction preventing or restricting particular future conduct. | Apply to continuing private nuisance, supported by Kennaway v Thompson. |
Damages | Financial compensation for recoverable harm and loss. | Compare with an injunction when deciding whether money, future control, or both are appropriate. |
Continuing nuisance | An actionable nuisance which continues over time rather than being a single completed event. | Explain why an injunction may be more useful than compensation alone. |
Remedy | The legal response available to a successful claimant after liability has been established. | Keep remedy selection separate from establishing liability and applying defences. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Do not forget remedies when they are expressly requested. OCR's 2022 report identified remedies as the most commonly missed part of one tort question, showing that students can lose substantial marks by establishing liability and then stopping.
Examiner hint: Apply the remedy rather than merely naming it. In the 2022 private nuisance question, stronger responses understood the relevant remedies and applied them thoughtfully to the continuing nuisance.
Examiner hint: Explain the legal principle first. OCR repeatedly distinguishes answers which explain law from those which simply state labels. Writing "injunction" alone does not demonstrate how the remedy operates.
Examiner hint: Use factual scaffolding. If the scenario tells you the nuisance is continuous, nighttime or intended to continue, use those facts to explain why an injunction restricting future activity may be appropriate.
Examiner hint: Follow the question rubric carefully. OCR questions sometimes expressly exclude remedies. When remedies are ruled out, discussing injunctions gains no credit and wastes time.
Examiner hint: Avoid the shotgun approach. OCR's 2022 private nuisance report criticised responses containing irrelevant nuisance principles, while stronger candidates selected and applied the rules actually required.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying an injunction is financial compensation
Why this is incorrect: Financial compensation is the role of damages.
How to improve: State that an injunction is a court order controlling the defendant's conduct.
Mistake: Recommending an injunction for every tort
Why this is incorrect: There may be no continuing conduct for the court to restrict.
How to improve: Ask what the injunction would actually prevent or limit.
For a completed one-off accident, damages will usually be the more obvious remedy.
Mistake: Saying an injunction must completely close a defendant's business
Why this is incorrect: OCR's 2022 application describes injunctions as capable of limiting future activity.
How to improve: Identify the particular activity causing the nuisance and explain how an injunction could restrict it.
Mistake: Assuming an injunction is automatically awarded in private nuisance
Why this is incorrect: OCR materials recognise a choice between damages and injunctions, particularly following Coventry v Lawrence.
How to improve: Use the facts to justify the most appropriate remedy.
Mistake: Treating coming to the nuisance as a defence
Why this is incorrect: Coming to the nuisance does not defeat an established private nuisance.
How to improve: Explain that it may instead influence the court's choice between damages and an injunction.
Mistake: Treating public benefit as a defence
Why this is incorrect: OCR expressly states that public benefit or social utility is not a defence to private nuisance.
How to improve: Explain that public benefit may nevertheless be considered when selecting the appropriate remedy.
Mistake: Discussing mitigation as though it were an injunction rule
Why this is incorrect: Mitigation concerns C taking reasonable steps after harm to limit avoidable loss.
How to improve: Keep mitigation of loss [Lesson 141. Mitigation of loss] separate from court-ordered control of D's future conduct.
Mistake: Proving liability again when the question states it is established
Why this is incorrect: This uses valuable examination time without addressing the actual issue.
How to improve: If the scenario states "an actionable nuisance has been established", move directly to the remedy.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Explain the basic concept of an injunction as a tort remedy. [2 marks]
Question 2
What is a prohibitory injunction? [3 marks]
Question 3
Explain one important difference between an injunction and compensatory damages. [4 marks]
Question 4
Explain why an injunction may be particularly appropriate where a private nuisance is continuing. Refer to relevant authority. [6 marks]
Question 5
An actionable private nuisance has been established against LoudLife Ltd because it operates outdoor speakers every night until 2 am. The activity is expected to continue indefinitely.
Advise the claimant on the remedy which may be particularly useful in preventing future interference. [6 marks]
Question 6
An actionable private nuisance has been established against GreenTrack Ltd. The claimant has suffered interference for two years and GreenTrack intends to continue the activity. The claimant moved into the neighbouring property after GreenTrack's activities had begun.
Explain the possible relevance of damages, an injunction and the claimant's decision to move to the property. [8 marks]
Question 7
An actionable private nuisance has been established against Community Arena Ltd because of continuing nighttime noise. The arena provides recreational facilities used by thousands of local residents.
Advise the claimant on the possible choice between damages and an injunction. [8 marks]
Question 8
An actionable private nuisance has been established against RapidRacing Ltd.
RapidRacing operates a motorsport venue next to Alex's house. Its daytime activities cause no unreasonable interference. However, during the last year it has introduced racing and amplified entertainment between 11 pm and 2 am every Friday and Saturday. The nighttime noise prevents Alex from sleeping.
Alex has already suffered the nuisance for one year, and RapidRacing intends to continue its existing timetable permanently.
RapidRacing argues that:
Alex bought the house after the motorsport venue first opened
the venue provides employment and recreation for many local people.
Advise Alex on the remedies which may be available. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award up to 2 marks for explaining that:
an injunction is a court order
which controls or restricts the defendant's conduct.
Question 2
Award up to 3 marks for explaining that:
a prohibitory injunction is a form of injunction
preventing or restricting particular conduct
and can be used to control continuing activity responsible for a tort such as private nuisance.
Relevant authority includes Kennaway v Thompson.
Question 3
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
Damages
provide financial compensation
can compensate for harm or loss already suffered.
Injunction
controls the defendant's conduct
can be particularly useful in restricting continuing or future wrongful activity.
Question 4
A strong response should explain that:
private nuisance may involve continuing interference with land
damages can compensate C financially
however, damages alone may leave the future nuisance continuing
an injunction can prohibit or restrict the future offending activity
Kennaway v Thompson is relevant authority
Coventry v Lawrence is relevant to the relationship between damages and injunctions.
Question 5
A strong response should explain:
liability is already established
the nighttime speaker use is continuing
LoudLife intends to continue indefinitely
a prohibitory injunction can restrict future activity
Kennaway v Thompson supports injunctions in private nuisance
the order could therefore limit the continuing nighttime activity causing the nuisance.
Conclusion: An injunction is particularly appropriate because the claimant requires protection from future interference rather than compensation alone.
Question 6
A strong answer should identify:
Damages
GreenTrack may be liable to compensate C for harm already suffered.
Following Coventry v Lawrence, damages can also be relevant when the court considers how an ongoing nuisance should be addressed.
Injunction
Because GreenTrack intends to continue the activity, a prohibitory injunction may be appropriate to restrict the future nuisance.
Relevant authorities include:
Kennaway v Thompson
Coventry v Lawrence.
Coming to the nuisance
The claimant moved to the property after GreenTrack's activities began.
This does not automatically provide a defence to an actionable nuisance.
However, OCR recognises that coming to the nuisance can be relevant when deciding between:
damages
an injunction.
Conclusion: Both damages and an injunction are potentially relevant. The claimant's later arrival does not defeat the claim, although it may influence the remedy selected.
Question 7
A strong answer should explain:
Continuing nuisance
The nighttime noise is ongoing.
This supports considering an injunction because a court order could restrict the future nuisance.
Damages
Damages may also compensate the claimant for harm already suffered or may be selected instead of an injunction where appropriate.
Public benefit
The fact that thousands of residents use the arena raises public benefit or social utility.
However, public benefit is not a defence to established private nuisance.
OCR recognises that it may nevertheless influence the choice of remedy, including whether damages or an injunction is appropriate.
Relevant authority includes:
Miller v Jackson
Adams v Ursell
Coventry v Lawrence.
Conclusion: The claimant has a legitimate argument for an injunction because the nuisance is continuing, but the arena's public benefit may influence the court's decision about whether an injunction or damages is the more appropriate remedy.
Question 8
A high-level answer should focus on remedies, because the question expressly states that private nuisance has already been established.
Basic remedies
The two principal remedies relevant to Alex are:
damages
an injunction.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme recognises both remedies in relation to continuing private nuisance and identifies Kennaway v Thompson, Coventry v Lawrence and Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co in connection with injunctions.
Damages for the past interference
Alex has already experienced a year of nighttime interference.
Damages may compensate him for relevant harm already suffered.
The detailed basis of compensation is studied in compensatory damages [Lesson 140. Compensatory damages].
Continuing nature of the nuisance
RapidRacing intends to continue:
nighttime racing
amplified entertainment
every Friday and Saturday
until 2 am.
The wrongful interference is therefore not complete.
Unless future conduct is restricted, Alex is likely to continue suffering the same nuisance.
This makes an injunction particularly important.
Prohibitory injunction
A prohibitory injunction can be used to restrict future activity responsible for an actionable nuisance.
Kennaway v Thompson is relevant authority.
The court would not necessarily need to prevent every activity carried out by RapidRacing.
The facts specifically state that the daytime activity causes no unreasonable interference.
The problematic conduct is the activity taking place between:
11 pm
2 am.
An injunction could therefore potentially focus on limiting the future nighttime activity responsible for the nuisance.
This reflects OCR's 2022 approach, where an injunction could be used to limit future activity at an ongoing go-kart nuisance.
Damages and injunction together
Alex has both:
past harm
threatened continuing interference.
This means it is reasonable to discuss both remedies.
Damages can address the financial remedy for harm already suffered, while an injunction can control what RapidRacing does in the future.
Alex came to the nuisance
RapidRacing points out that Alex bought his house after the motorsport venue opened.
This is coming to the nuisance.
It is not a defence to an established private nuisance.
Therefore, RapidRacing cannot use this fact to remove liability.
However, under Coventry v Lawrence, coming to the nuisance may be relevant when the court chooses between:
an injunction
damages.
Alex's later arrival may therefore affect the remedy decision without defeating his claim.
Public benefit
RapidRacing also argues that it:
provides employment
provides recreation for many local people.
This raises public benefit or social utility.
Again, this is not a defence to private nuisance.
However, OCR materials recognise that public benefit can influence remedy selection.
The court may therefore take the wider benefits into account when deciding whether to impose an injunction or award damages.
Balancing the remedy
There are strong reasons supporting an injunction:
the nuisance occurs repeatedly
it prevents Alex sleeping
RapidRacing intends to continue permanently
the offending activity can be identified specifically as nighttime operation.
There are also facts which may influence the court towards a less restrictive remedy:
Alex moved to the area after the venue had opened
the venue provides public benefits.
However, neither of these arguments removes RapidRacing's established liability.
Overall conclusion
Alex has a strong argument for damages relating to the nuisance he has already suffered.
Because the nighttime nuisance is continuing and RapidRacing intends to maintain the same schedule permanently, a prohibitory injunction is also particularly relevant.
The injunction could potentially restrict the specific nighttime activities causing the nuisance rather than preventing all operation of the venue.
Alex's decision to move beside the existing venue and RapidRacing's public benefit do not provide defences, but they may influence the court's choice between damages and an injunction under the approach recognised in Coventry v Lawrence.
A complete OCR answer should therefore avoid simply saying "Alex gets an injunction". It should explain what the injunction would control, why continuing facts make it useful, and why the court may nevertheless consider damages as an alternative or additional remedy.
These remedy-selection skills are consolidated next in tort remedies problem solving [Lesson 143. Tort remedies problem solving].
Comments