Tort connected to land – Private Nuisance
• What is an unreasonable interference?
• Private nuisance = unreasonable interference • Unreasonable use of the land by the def, which leads to an unreasonable
with the enjoyment or use by the occupier of interference with the claimant’s use of enjoyment of their land – London
their land
Borough of Southwark v Mills (1999)
• Elements: • In determining whether or not the use of the land and the interference were
• Concerned with protecting the rights of an reasonable, the courts will consider:
occupier against ‘unreasonable interference with
the enjoyment or use of his land’ • Nature of the locality/neighbourhood:
• Often involves disputes between neighbours. • The reasonableness of the use of land will depend upon the
• The courts attempt to balance the competing nature of the locality – Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients
rights of the neighbour not to have their use or (2011)
enjoyment of land interfered with. • Planning permission may change the nature of the locality but
• Who can bring a claim: cannot give permission for the nuisance – Coventry v Lawrence
• Must have an interest in the land which they claim (2012)
their enjoyment of use of has been unreasonably • Where the nuisance causes physical damage, the nature of the
interfered with.
locality is irrelevant. – St Helen’s Smelting co v Tipping (1865)
• Legal interest – not necessarily ownership –
Malone v Laskey (1907) and Hunter v Canary • Duration:
Wharf (1997) • Most nuisances consist of a continuing interference, so claimant
• Defendant (the creator of the nuisance) does not seeks an injunction to prevent the reoccurrences – De Keyser’s
need to own or occupy the land that the nuisance Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914)
is emitting from; they just need to have used the •
land – Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City Council (2002) The longer a nuisance lasts, the greater the interference and the
more likelihood of it being held to be an unlawful interference.
• What amounts to a nuisance?: Nevertheless, a temporary activity may still constitute a
• A nuisance caused by an ‘interference’ can be: nuisance -De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914)
• Flooding – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
• Smells – Wheeler v JJ Saunders (1996) • Sensitivity:
• Encroachment – Lemmon v Webb (1894) • If the claimant is abnormally sensitive, the defendant will not be
• Noise – Kennaway v Thompson (1981) liable – unless the activity would amount to a nuisance to a
• Balls – Miller v Jackson (1977) reasonable person using the land in a normal manner –
• A brothel – Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956)
Robinson v Kilvert (1889); McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951)
• Physical Damage – St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping
(1865) • Malice:
• If the defendant’s actions are malicious, they are more likely to
be held unreasonable – Christie v Davey (1893); Hollywood
Sliver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
• What is an unreasonable interference?
• Private nuisance = unreasonable interference • Unreasonable use of the land by the def, which leads to an unreasonable
with the enjoyment or use by the occupier of interference with the claimant’s use of enjoyment of their land – London
their land
Borough of Southwark v Mills (1999)
• Elements: • In determining whether or not the use of the land and the interference were
• Concerned with protecting the rights of an reasonable, the courts will consider:
occupier against ‘unreasonable interference with
the enjoyment or use of his land’ • Nature of the locality/neighbourhood:
• Often involves disputes between neighbours. • The reasonableness of the use of land will depend upon the
• The courts attempt to balance the competing nature of the locality – Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients
rights of the neighbour not to have their use or (2011)
enjoyment of land interfered with. • Planning permission may change the nature of the locality but
• Who can bring a claim: cannot give permission for the nuisance – Coventry v Lawrence
• Must have an interest in the land which they claim (2012)
their enjoyment of use of has been unreasonably • Where the nuisance causes physical damage, the nature of the
interfered with.
locality is irrelevant. – St Helen’s Smelting co v Tipping (1865)
• Legal interest – not necessarily ownership –
Malone v Laskey (1907) and Hunter v Canary • Duration:
Wharf (1997) • Most nuisances consist of a continuing interference, so claimant
• Defendant (the creator of the nuisance) does not seeks an injunction to prevent the reoccurrences – De Keyser’s
need to own or occupy the land that the nuisance Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914)
is emitting from; they just need to have used the •
land – Jones Ltd v Portsmouth City Council (2002) The longer a nuisance lasts, the greater the interference and the
more likelihood of it being held to be an unlawful interference.
• What amounts to a nuisance?: Nevertheless, a temporary activity may still constitute a
• A nuisance caused by an ‘interference’ can be: nuisance -De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914)
• Flooding – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)
• Smells – Wheeler v JJ Saunders (1996) • Sensitivity:
• Encroachment – Lemmon v Webb (1894) • If the claimant is abnormally sensitive, the defendant will not be
• Noise – Kennaway v Thompson (1981) liable – unless the activity would amount to a nuisance to a
• Balls – Miller v Jackson (1977) reasonable person using the land in a normal manner –
• A brothel – Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956)
Robinson v Kilvert (1889); McKinnon Industries v Walker (1951)
• Physical Damage – St Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping
(1865) • Malice:
• If the defendant’s actions are malicious, they are more likely to
be held unreasonable – Christie v Davey (1893); Hollywood
Sliver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)
