Keyword Analysis & Research: network rail infrastructure limited v morris

Keyword Analysis

Keyword CPC PCC Volume Score Length of keyword
network rail infrastructure limited v morris0.860.668804944
network1.920.27585167
rail1.990.6760654
infrastructure1.370.622769914
limited1.620.37796937
v0.780.77759181
morris1.370.62360256

Keyword Research: People who searched network rail infrastructure limited v morris also searched

Keyword CPC PCC Volume Score
network rail infrastructure limited v morris20.2340710
network rail v morris0.460.312607
network rail v morris 20041.650.631867
network rail infrastructure ltd v williams0.250.4996316
network rail infrastructure v williams1.290.1300163
network rail infrastructure limited0.470.11779
morris v morris 1982 1 nswlr 610.340.429131
network rail infrastructure v morris1.350.2622737
network rail infrastructure v morris 20040.970.1738782
network rail infrastructure ltd v morris1.030.6865014
network rail infrastructure ltd v morris 20041.240.2497685
network rail v williams0.210.2305939
walsh v network rail1.540.5111819
williams v network rail 20181.660.9821232
r v morris 20131.41335572

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the issue in Network Rail Ltd v Morris?

Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. on Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Private nuisance – Foreseeability.

What was the case of Morris v Morris?

on Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Private nuisance – Foreseeability.

Why did the Network Rail Ltd lose business?

The fact of the case: The Network Rail Ltd, the defendant, installed new electronic singling system for its rail network which caused electromagnetic interference with the claimant’s recording studio which was situated about 80 meters away. Due to the interference, the claimant lost business and brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.

Is Network Rail a nuisance?

Held: The court agreed with Network Rail i.e. the interference from the electromagnetics was not foreseeable so there was no nuisance. So, although there was interference, and this interference was by a state of affairs, it wasn’t a nuisance because the effect wasn’t foreseeable


Search Results related to network rail infrastructure limited v morris on Search Engine

  • Nuisance - electromagnetic interference | Practical Law

    thomsonreuters.com

    https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-107-2235?contextData=(sc.Default)

    DA: 20 PA: 33 MOZ Rank: 97

  • Network Rail v Morris - e-lawresources.co.uk

    e-lawresources.co.uk

    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Network-Rail-v-Morris.php

    WebNetwork Rail v Morris [2004] EWCA Civ 172 Court of Appeal. The claimant ran a recording studio in Croydon. The studio was situated 80 metres from the London to Brighton main …

    DA: 39 PA: 15 MOZ Rank: 80

  • Nuisance - electromagnetic interference | Practical Law

    thomsonreuters.com

    https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-107-2235?contextData=(sc.Default)

    WebMorris (t/a Soundstar Studio) v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, 20 February 2004, (Court of Appeal, Civil Division). This case involved electromagnetic interference from a railway …

    DA: 20 PA: 98 MOZ Rank: 12

  • Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris (t/a Soundstar …

    casemine.com

    https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff70d60d03e7f57ea6d71

    WebFeb 20, 2004 · In Hunter v Canary Wharf Limited [1997] AC 655 two members of the House of Lords recognised the possibility that the reception of television might in appropriate …

    DA: 83 PA: 95 MOZ Rank: 33

  • Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris (T/A Soundstar Studio): …

    swarb.co.uk

    https://swarb.co.uk/network-rail-infrastructure-ltd-v-cj-morris-t-a-soundstar-studio-ca-20-feb-2004/

    WebJun 10, 2022 · Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris (T/A Soundstar Studio): CA 20 Feb 2004 - swarb.co.uk Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris (T/A Soundstar …

    DA: 15 PA: 29 MOZ Rank: 7

  • Tort Law Case Summaries - IPSA LOQUITUR

    ipsaloquitur.com

    https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/

    WebNetwork Rail v Morris; Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams; Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat; Nicholas H, The; Nichols v Marsland; Northampton BC v Lovatt; Nottingham …

    DA: 46 PA: 88 MOZ Rank: 65

  • Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance - LIUK

    liuk.co.uk

    https://liuk.co.uk/network-rail-ltd-v-morris-2004/

    WebMar 31, 2017 · Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Private nuisance – Foreseeability. …

    DA: 4 PA: 69 MOZ Rank: 56

  • Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtrack Plc) v CJ Morris

    vlex.co.uk

    https://vlex.co.uk/vid/network-rail-infrastructure-ltd-793699605

    WebFeb 20, 2004 · Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtrack Plc) v CJ Morris (trading as Soundstar Studio) Judgment Cited authorities 14 Cited in 4 Precedent Map …

    DA: 8 PA: 3 MOZ Rank: 100

  • BAILII - England and Wales Cases page 184

    bailii.org

    https://www.bailii.org/indices/ew-cases-0184.html

    WebJul 31, 2001 · Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs [2017] EWHC 2259 (Admin) (08 …

    DA: 8 PA: 16 MOZ Rank: 3

  • What was the issue in Network Rail Ltd v Morris?

    liuk.co.uk

    https://liuk.co.uk/network-rail-ltd-v-morris-2004/

    Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. on Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Private nuisance – Foreseeability.

    DA: 7 PA: 75 MOZ Rank: 36

  • What was the case of Morris v Morris?

    liuk.co.uk

    https://liuk.co.uk/network-rail-ltd-v-morris-2004/

    on Network Rail Ltd v Morris (2004): private nuisance – the test of sensitivity vs foreseeability. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Private nuisance – Foreseeability.

    DA: 32 PA: 31 MOZ Rank: 19

  • Why did the Network Rail Ltd lose business?

    liuk.co.uk

    https://liuk.co.uk/network-rail-ltd-v-morris-2004/

    The fact of the case: The Network Rail Ltd, the defendant, installed new electronic singling system for its rail network which caused electromagnetic interference with the claimant’s recording studio which was situated about 80 meters away. Due to the interference, the claimant lost business and brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.

    DA: 72 PA: 40 MOZ Rank: 85

  • Is Network Rail a nuisance?

    digestiblenotes.com

    https://digestiblenotes.com/law/tort_cases/private_nuisance.php

    Held: The court agreed with Network Rail i.e. the interference from the electromagnetics was not foreseeable so there was no nuisance. So, although there was interference, and this interference was by a state of affairs, it wasn’t a nuisance because the effect wasn’t foreseeable

    DA: 96 PA: 39 MOZ Rank: 40