What is private nuisance
Private nuisacne is a tort which protects an occupiers right to use and enjoy the land, or some right over it or connect with it, from unreasonable interference.
There are three types of nuisance as stated in Hunter v Canary Wharf. What are they?
Encroachment on a neightbours land, usiance by direct phsyical injury to a neighbours land and nuisance by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of the land
What must the claimant prove to make a succesful claim
An indirect and unlawful interference with the land
This interference caued daage to the claiamnt
that interfernce was unreasonable
Exception to the rule that nuisancce must be continuos
British Celanese v Hunt
British Celanese v Hunt
Foil was blown from the Defendant’s land where it was stored and had damages an electricity substation, causing the electricity to an industrial estate to cut off this occured once a frew years preciously because of the way in which the material was stored. the trial judge held this to be a private nuisance.
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Fireword display constituted a nuisance when it was inevitable that for 15-20 minutes debris of a flammable nature would fall upon nearby property thereby damaging the property in the ensuing fire.
Thompson Schwab v Costkaki
The court of appeal held that running a brothel in a respectable residential area could be considered a nuisance
Leakey v National Trust
The D occupiers were aware of the possiility of a landside occuring age the mound which they occpied became very dry after a hot summer. When the landslide occured, the claimant owners of the neighbourign land clsimed that there had been a nuisance The defendants had not caused the land slide but had failed to prevent it, thus they were held to be continuing a nuisance.
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Council
The council were not held to be liable where their land failed to contine to support their neighbour’s, as they could not have foreseen the damage without an expensive survey.
Hasley v Esso Petroleum
Veale J said that the character of the neighbourhood is very relevant and what may be a nuiance in one area is not necessarily a nuisance in another
St Helens Smelting Co Tipping
The plaintiff brought property and several months later the defendant began extensive smelting work on its property. D’s property was situated within a mile and half of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleged tat the fumes from the defendants works had caused damage to trees and shrubs on the plaintiff’s land.
Locality is not releveant…

Locality is relevant…

Where there has been material damage to property (St Helens Smelting Co)

Where sensible personal discomfort has been caused

Sturges V Bridgeman
What would be a nuisance is belgravia square would not be so in bermondsy
Baxter v Camden London Borough Council
P complained of noise made by her upstairs neighbours, both being tenants of the defendant ina convertd house. The action of nuisance failed because the noise was part of the ordinary use of the premises and “occupiers of lw cost density housing must be expected to tlerate higher levels of noise from their neighbours.”
Murdoch v Glacier Metal
The claiamant complained of a low droning noise coming from the defendants factory at night which prevented her from sleeping. The trial judge held that this didnot constitute an actionable nuisance when considering the area in which the claiamnt ouse was siutated, near o a busy bypass, and no one else had complained of the noise.
Gillingham (principles)
Where planning permission is given for a change of use or development, the question of nuisance thereafter will fall to be decided by reference to a neighbourhood with that development or use and not as it was previously.
Gillingham facts
Held that planning permission to operate a commercial port changed the locality of the area from residential to commercial. The increased level of traffic caused by the port was no longer unreasonable.
Planning permission will not provide immunity to a nuisance action
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
The D’s had obtained planning permission to build two pig houses close to the claimant’s land, resulting in strong smells drifiting across the plaintiff’s property. The Court of APpeal confirmed that planning permissio could only be taken as authorisation of nuisance if is effects was to alter the character of the neighbourhood so that the nuisance could not be considered unreasonable.
A man cannot increase the liabilites of his neighbour by applying his own property to special uses, whether for business or for pleasure
Robertson v Kilert
The plaintiff’s claim for damage to abnormally sensitive paper sorted in a cellar was affected by the heat from adjoining premises the claim failed as ordinary paper would not be affected by the temperature
Heath v Mayor of Brighton
Claim for sermons were interrupted by sound from defenan power stations failed as no one complained of the problem.
Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electicity Board
The claim was refused on the grounds of the “exceptionally sensitive” nature of the claimants business.
Mckinnon Industries v Walker (principle)
As soon as the defendants had infringed the right to ordinary enjoment they can also claim protectio from damage because of unusual sensitivity.
Mckinnon industries v Walker
Notorious fumes from the defendants factory damagd orchids. As thefumes would have damaged flowers of ordinary sensitivity there was no nuisance.
Christie v Davie
Christie v Davie
The plaintiff had been giving music lessons in his semi detached house for several years, the defenant, irritated by the noise banged on walls etc with the intention of annoying his neighbour and spoiling the music lessons.
Allen v Flood
No proprietor has an absolute right to create noise in his own land, because any right which the law gives him is qaulified by the condition that it must not be exercies to the nuisance of the neighbours or the public
Hollyod Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
The defendan, ater a dsipute deliberatley fired guns near the plaintiff’s foxes during breeding time.
thomas v nationalunion mine workers
stiking miners picketing in the road outside a factory could be liable in private nuisance
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan
The authority had built a pipe which took water away from the ditch, this was done without the defendants knowledge. Neighbouring land flooded.B By this time, the defendant knew that the pipe existed nd the H.O.L held that an occupier who knows of a danger but allows it to continue is liable, even if they do not create danger in the first place.
Malone v Laskey
Only a person with a possesory or proprietaty interest in the land alleged to be the suject f the nuisance could sue.
Khorandijan v Bush
The limitation that only a person with a possesory/ propietary right in the land could sue was ridiculous. Plaintiff was granted an injunction after a man made repeated harrasing phone calls to her at her parent house (reversed in Hunter 1997)
Mckenna v British Aluminium
over 30 claiamans sued in nuisance over the noise and fumes, some of the children had no interet in the land. Through implementation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, their claim was not struck out.
s.8 of the Human Rights Act
Protects the right to protect family life and home
The claiamnrs acquired legal rights in land severl months after their flat was damaged by tree roots from neighbouring land. their claim was suceesful as nuisance was held to be a continuing state of affairs.
What are the two defences in nuisance
statutory authority and prescription
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Co
Residents in the area where the defendants were operating an oil refinary under statutory authority failed in their claim that this consituted a nuisance.

Leave a comment