ACTORS' EQUITY OF AUSTRALIA V. LINDRUM AND ANOTHER

~

set |

> j IN THE HIGH COURT OF austRALiAS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

40958 A. H. Patrirsn, Active Govt. Prix.

IN_THE_ HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

) NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY )

ACTORS' EQUITY OF AUSTRALIA ve LINDRUM _& _ANOR. 14th November 1944

GMENT.

LATHAM C.J.: We are of opinion that this appeal should be

dismissed. We all agree that there was evidence upon which the learned trial Judge could properly find that there was a nuisance according to the ordinary standard as laid down in Walter v. Selfe, 4 De G. & S., 315 and other authorities,

The only other question which requires consideration is whether Actors' Equity, described as the landlord in relation to Miss Lindrum and also in relation to Gershon, the other defendant, is} liable for the nuisance.

Liability. for nuisance arising from use of land rests in general upon the occupier of the land. If, however, the owner of land allows a person tous the land as a licensee, then the owner is liable for any nuisance created by his licensee. The case of White v. Jameson, L.R. 18 Eq. 303, cited by Mr. Isaacs is an example of the application of that principle, If Gershon was a

licensee of Actors' Equity then the latter is liable for the nuisance created by him.

It is argued for Actors' Equity, however, that Gershon : was not a licensee,but a tenant. In general a landlord is not liable for a nuisance created by a tenant: the tenant is the | occupier and is the person liable, and the-landlord is free of ' responsibility. But if the land is let for a purpose which | necessarily involves the creation of a nuisance, as in the case cited of Malzy v, Eichholz, 1916 2 K.B., 308, the landlord will be liable. It is also settled that the landlord is liable where he lets the premises "for a purpose which is likely to cause a nuisance of a

particular character and such nuisance results". I read from