From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1993] QB 272 (CA). The claimant sued the defendant to obtain an injunction to prevent him making persistent harrassing telephone calls to her at her mother's house. The basis of the claim was that the calls amounted to aprivate nuisance. Traditionally, this form of nuisance has not been actionable by a person who occupies land as a licencee (MaloneVLaskey1907), which would have been unfortunate in this case. The defendant's mother would have had title to sue, but would have suffered no damage, so her suit would most likely have failed.

The Court of Appeal held that the action should succeed, and that the law of nuisance ought to be available to a person who occupied land as a licencee, and had a 'substantial connection' to the landowner (a relative, for example). The injunction was therefore granted. However, this principle was firmly overruled by the House of lords in HunterVCanaryWharf1997 and, therefore, Khorasandjan must now probably be regarded as wrongly decided, at least on this point.