Defective Buildings Are a Nuisance

Area of Science:

• Property Law
• Tort Law
• Building Safety

Background:

• Leaseholders of defective buildings face challenges in seeking remediation.
• The Supreme Court's decision in *Fearn v Tate Gallery* broadened the scope of nuisance law.
• Building defects such as unsafe cladding and fire safety issues render properties unsellable and unsafe.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the application of nuisance law as a remedy for leaseholders of defective buildings.
• To analyze how the expanded scope of nuisance can facilitate building remediation.
• To consider the potential for using nuisance law for public good in addressing building safety defects.

Main Methods:

• Legal analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in *Fearn v Tate Gallery*.
• Examination of the principles of nuisance law in the context of property defects.
• Discussion of landlord liability as freeholders under nuisance law.
• Exploration of the remedy of injunction for building remediation.

Main Results:

• Nuisance law, post-*Fearn*, can apply to substantial interference with property use without physical invasion.
• Landlords may be held liable for failing to remediate hazards in defective premises.
• Leaseholders may be able to obtain injunctions for building remediation through nuisance claims.

Conclusions:

• The tort of nuisance offers a potential legal avenue for leaseholders to seek remediation of defective buildings.
• Applying nuisance law to defective premises could provide a mechanism for addressing widespread building safety issues.
• This approach could serve the public good by compelling the remediation of hazardous buildings.