1. The claimant's gas and electricity metres were placed in the defendant's cellar.

Without
the claimant's permission, the defendant turned them off cutting off both supplies (Perera
v Vandiyar, 1953)
It is about Perera who is a tenant at Vandiyar. It has two rooms and his gas and electricity
meters were placed in the defendant`s celar. Vandiyar turned off the gas and electricity
according to him because he thought Perera had gone on vacation. After a few days without
electricity and gas Perera came up with a county court decision that Vaniyar must turn on
the electricity and gas supply to the Perera because it violates the contract between the two
of them (power and gas off). Vandiyar complained about it, as I said, because he was obliged
to compensate Perera for violating the contract. He said that he considered that Perera was
on holiday and that his intentions were not intentional or that he wanted to break the
agreement.
The court's decision ultimately remained the same as the first time because Vandiyar
nevertheless violated his agreement or contract concluded with Perera but is not considered
a tort. It is not considered because it did not encroach on its space so there is no direct
trespass.
In my opinion this is a trespass because I find that Vandiyar can’t think on the basis of
anything that Perera was on vacation. I think he did it sensibly and thoughtfully because
among other things and if the gas and electricity were open all the time, the fee would
surely be paid by Perera. Among other things if he wanted to “save” electricity and gas he
could check if Perera really left.

2. The owner of a plot of land allowed go-kart racing to take place on it. Neighbours
claimed nuisance. (Tetley v Chitty, 1986)

In this case it is about how the local council allowed and leased the land for go karting. This
land is located in the suburbs of the residential zone and the residents have filed a lawsuit
due to the high noise caused by go-karting. To which the local council replied that they had
only leased the land and had not approved the nuisance or noise.
The court's decision is that the council is responsible for the noise. Because with go karting
comes noise that they could pay attention to, so they approved of nuisance.
I agree with the decision of the court, because when a care contract is concluded, I think that
attention should be paid to the basic assumptions that come out of it. I consider this action
an obstacle, but as the court made in its decision, it is the fault of the local council.