Law of Torts

Running Head: LAW OF TORTS
Law of Torts
Name
Institution

LAW OF TORTS 2
Law of Torts
Introduction
The Thompson Schwab and Another v Costaki and Another (1956) is a case of a private
nuisance (1956). In this case, the claimant obtained an interlocutory injunction against the
defendant founded on the defendant’s carrying a business as a prostitute in similar street in
respectable district of West End of London. This was because he claimant’s property constituted
a sensible intrusion with plaintiff’s property land (Gordley & Von, 2006).
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff was living together with the family members in a residential street in
London and the neighbouring house was used by the defendants for the purposes of prostitution.
The defendants in this case were to bring police officers as their clients from adjacent streets and
bring them to the house. The plaintiff in the case brought an act to hold down the prostitutes
from utilizing the residence for prostitution purposes and successfully received an interlocutory
injunction (Murphy & Street, 2012). The defendants came with their clients who were mainly
policemen to promote their prostitution acts in the residence. They frequently interfered with the
enjoyment and comfort of the claimant because the noise in the rooms interfered with the
claimant family (Hubbard & Colosi, 2015).
Findings
The court found even an offensive sight was held to be an actionable nuisance. The act of
defendants (prostitutes) constituted a rational interference with the comfy, as well as expedient

LAW OF TORTS 3
enjoyment of the plaintiff’s residence, having regard to the usage of the civilized society, as well
as to the character of the neighbourhood (McBride & Bagshaw, 2018). Lord Evershed, M.R in
his judgement established that the case made by the plaintiffs demonstrated adequate prima facie
case to this consequence, where the actions by the defendants conducted at No. 12 Chesterfield
Street were not only open; however, they were disreputable and this force themselves on the
nous of scene. Thus, the guards of the prostitutes along with their clients is something apparent
that is deliberate that amounted to a sensible interference with the comfy plus expedient
enjoyment of plaintiff dwelling were live with his family and servants (Blomley, 2010).
Synopsis of Rule
The decision of the court regarding the private nuisance case was based on the fact that
an offensive sight was maintained by the judge as an actionable nuisance by the defendants while
carrying out their prostitution acts. The Court of Appeal in this case did not accept that the
defendants (prostitutes) could be only liable for using a house as a venue to prostitution activities
of their acts had a physical effect on the claimant’s comfort and enjoyment of his neighbouring
house (Coulmont & Hubbard, 2010). The Court of Appeal upheld the granting of injunction to
prevent the prostitutes were the defendants in the case from operating next door to the claimant’s
home in Myfair. The court made the decision in that the act of prostitution constituted not a mere
hurt of sensibilities as a fastidious man; however, a rational interference with the comfy along
with expedient enjoyment of his dwelling (Bermingham & Brennan, 2008).
Qustion/Answer (Q/A)