000			01093cab a2200265 4500
001			Z3924
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55993
041			_aeng
100			_aPenner, J.E.
245			_aNuisance and the character of the neighbourhood
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aJournal of Environmental Law _v5(1) 1993, 1-29(29)
520			_aAttacks the decision in "Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd", seeing in it a shift away from the traditional tort approach of assessing the extent to which a plaintiffs rights have been violated, towards an economic analysis of law: balancing the benefits to the conflicting parties` land use. Argues that if applied to the forthcoming "Docklands" case, this principle will serve inadequately to protect the environment.
650			_aBAMFORD V TURNLEY
650			_aNOISE
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
650			_aST HELENS SMELTING CO V TIPPING
650			_aSTURGES V BRIDGMAN
650			_aWALTER V SELFE
690			_aLAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c34200 _d34200