RAF Wittering Harrier Jet nuisance case

This remains a leading civil nuisance claim brought against the Ministry of Defence (“MoD). We acted for the Claimants, Mr and Mrs Dennis. The Claimants established that the RAF’s Harrier Jump Jets training routines caused noise nuisance that interfered with their enjoyment of their property. Although the High Court decided not to halt the use of RAF Wittering for training Harrier pilots, the Judge awarded the Claimants substantial compensation.

In use since WWI, RAF Wittering changed over the years and by 1969 Harriers were operational at the base. The base remained in continuous use for pilot training which included an exercise known as the “emergency circuit” where pilots hover and land the jets vertically.

The Claimants live on their family estate, Walcot Hall. Over the course of a decade they submitted numerous complaints. While the MoD operates grant schemes to voluntarily reimburse local homeowners affected by its activities, it was not practicable to make use of these schemes. Accordingly the Claimants instructed Richard Buxton to commence proceedings against the MoD.

Walcot Hall is roughly 2 miles from the runway at RAF Wittering. The evidence at trial dealt with several issues, from training of pilots to aircraft noise. Typically the aircraft would take off in the opposite direction and return to land over Walcot Hall. No one disputed that the Harrier is a noisy aircraft, if not the noisiest. The Judge also accepted that it was no use moving the runway as that would only put the “noise problem on someone else’s doorstep”.

Until trial the MoD had defended the claim on the basis that there was no nuisance. At trial they sought to argue that they had acquired the right to commit a nuisance. This alleged right was rejected by the Judge for various reasons including the fact that there was a history of complaints.  In this case the Claimants had objected to the routine training flights well before 20 years had elapsed. 20 years is the period required to amount to what is called a “user as of right”.

The Judge had no problem finding that the flying of the Harriers over the Claimant’s house many times during a flying day amounted to a nuisance. The question for the court was whether it was justified. The MoD argued that the flying of Harriers was a reasonable use in the interests of national security and, as such, it was justified as being in the public interest. The Judge decided that the Claimants had established a nuisance, but there was a public interest in allowing RAF Wittering to continue to train Harrier pilots and therefore he refused to grant a declaration that no flying should take place. He had regard to the fact that the use of the base for flying Harriers would be phased out by 2012. Instead, the Judge concluded that the RAF’s activities amounted to an “interference with the enjoyment of that property that no one should be called upon to endure” and awarded substantial compensation.

This case remains a leading case awarding compensation for private nuisance arising from the use of military aircraft. It is different to noise complaints arising from other aircraft noise where s76 Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that there is no redress in law for most types of non-military aircraft noise. The Judge made clear that even if he was wrong to award compensation for nuisance, that where the court had also granted a declaration that the MoD had breached the Claimants’ Article 8 rights to respect of their home/family life they were, alternatively, entitled to compensation under the Human Rights Act 1998. As well as general damages for loss of amenity and loss of use, the Judge awarded compensation for loss of business opportunity and loss of property value totalling almost £1mn.