In Bakhaty & Anor v Hampshire County Council [2025] EWHC 1175 (KB) (14 May 2025) a Winchester couple were successful in their nuisance claim against Hampshire County Council due to footballs landing in their garden from a local school.
In October 2022, the Claimants who reside in a property adjacent to a local school, issued a claim alleging common law nuisance against their local council due to significant interference being caused by the all-weather play area (AWPA) which had been constructed at the school. The Claimants alleged that the nuisance being caused by the AWPA, which included noise nuisance and footballs landing in their garden at a high rate, had substantially interfered with their enjoyment of their property.
The Claimants' property is comprised of a large garden which includes a swimming pool. They alleged that over an 11-month period, 170 footballs had landed in their garden from the AWPA and this had significantly affected their enjoyment of their property. It had also rendered their garden a no-go area. In addition to the footballs, the Claimants also alleged that the noise being caused by activities taking place on the AWPA also amounted to common law nuisance. The AWPA was not only being used during the week but also on weekends as it was regularly rented to external organisations to use.
In addition to the nuisance claim, the Claimants also sought an injunction against the council prohibiting any use of the AWPA.
The Defendant argued that the AWPA was a valuable facility for both the school and the wider community as a whole and that the school had put mitigating measures in place, which included a net, to try and mitigate the issues being caused with footballs landing in the Claimants' garden.
The Judge who presided over the final hearing determined that both the noise and footballs landing in the Claimants' garden prior to the mitigating measures that were put in place by the school amounted to nuisance and awarded the Claimant the sum of £1,000 in damages. However, in relation to the injunction application, the Judge did not believe it would be appropriate to grant this in the circumstances, as the Defendant did not threaten or intend to continue the nuisance he had found existed.
Overall, this case highlights the importance of measures being put in place when similar facilities are being constructed, to ensure that those within the proximity of a similar site will not be negatively affected in any way.
