Analysis of Thompson Schwab v Costaki Case: Law of Private Nuisance

This case study provides an analysis of the Thompson Schwab and Another v Costaki and Another case, a landmark example of private nuisance. The case revolves around the defendant's prostitution activities interfering with the claimant's comfortable enjoyment of their property. The court's decision, which favored the claimant and issued an injunction against the defendant, hinged on the principle that even offensive sights and immoral activities can constitute an actionable nuisance if they substantially interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their land. The study further explores the implications of this ruling, examining the effectiveness of nuisance law in controlling immoral behavior and its impact on local communities. It concludes that the law of nuisance can be an effective tool, offering a legal recourse when such activities significantly disrupt the comfort and well-being of residents. Desklib offers this and many other solved assignments for students.

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)

LAW OF TORTS 4
Q: What constituted a private nuisance in the case Thompson Schwab and Another v Costaki and
Another?
A: Private nuisance constitutes any incessant act or state of affairs that resulted in considerable
along with irrational interference with a plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of the land. The private
nuisance is only a tort where damages for individual harms are not recoverable. In the case
above, the defendants (prostitutes) interfered with the claimant’s enjoyment by bringing police
officers to the residence (Beever, 2014).
Q: Do the law of nuisance be effective means of controlling immoral activity offending local
people?
A: The law of nuisance is effective in controlling immoral behaviour such as prostitution from
taking place. The law would function more effectively rather than planning controls and avoids
the danger of people taking law in their hands (Moor, 2011).
Conclusion
The Thompson Schwab and Another v Costaki and Another case needed the claimant to
show that the defendant’s acts resulted in the interference with their enjoyment of the land. The
conduct of the prostitutes interfered with the enjoyment of the owner of the residence where the
interference affected his family and that the defendants were found guilty of private nuisance and
the court maintained that the prostitutes caused damages to the claimant where injunctions are
the primary remedy (Bermingham & Brennan, 2016). The nuisance in this case was due entering
and leaving of the prostitutes and the clients into the dwelling resulting in substantial interference
to the neighbours, which is the claimant.

LAW OF TORTS 5
References
Beever, A. (2014). The Law of Private Nuisance. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bermingham, V. & Brennan, C. (2008). Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
Bermingham, V., & Brennan, C. (2016). Tort law: Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blomley, N. (2010). Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow.
GlassHouse, New York, NY.
Coulmont, B. & Hubbard, P. (2010). Consuming sex: socio-legal shifts in the space and place of
sex shops. Journal of Law and Society. 37(1); 189-210.
Enriquez, R., Cancino, J.M. & Varano, S.P. (2006), “Legal and empirical perspective on crime
and adult establishments: a secondary effects study in San Antonio, TX. Journal of
Gender, Social Policy and the Law. 15(1); 1-42.
Gordley, J., & Von, M. A. T. (2006). An introduction to the comparative study of private law:
Readings, cases, materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, B., & Marston, J. (2009). Cases and commentary on tort. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hubbard, P. & Colosi, R. (2015). Taking back the night? Gender and the contestation of sexual
entertainment in England and Wales. Urban Studies. 52(3); 589-605.

LAW OF TORTS 6
McBride, N. J., & Bagshaw, R. (2018). Tort Law. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education
Limited.
Moor, F. (2011). Planning for nuisance?: A review of the effects of the Planning Act 2008 on the
statutory authority defence in the UK. International Journal of Law in the Built
Environment. Emerald Journals. 3 (1); 67-98.
Murphy, J., & Street, H. (2012). Street on torts. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Strong, S. I., & Williams, L. (2011). Tort law: Text, cases & materials. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Witting, C. A. (2018). Street on torts. Oxford University Press.