HL 24 April 1997. Two separate appeals heard together. First appeal, whether interference with television reception from the defendant`s (C) tower block enabled the plaintiff`s (H) to sue in private nuisance. In the second appeal (H) claimed damages in nuisance against the defendant (L) in respect of deposits of dust on their properties caused by construction of a link road. CA ruled for (C) in the first action and for (H) in the second action (the dust action), reversing both the original rulings. The HL held that interference with television reception was not capable of constituting an actionable private nuisance, as an owner is free to build on his own land, subject to planning control. In the second action, HL stated that a person who has no right over land affected by a nuisance cannot bring an action in private nuisance. Appeal of plaintiffs in "Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd." dismissed. Appeal of defendants in "Hunter v London Docklands Development Corp." allowed.