NUISANCE AND RYLANDS V FLETCHER
-One of the oldest torts longer history then negligence
-2 forms: PRIVATE and PUBLIC nuisance
PRIVATE NUISANCE
Private= unreasonable interference with use + enjoyment of land or some right over it
NATURE OF PRIVATE NUISANCE
No requirement conduct of D is careless but must be some unreasonableness
Nuisance is strict liability
Nuisances can be continuing can be deliberate activities, issue is for continuing nuisances is
whether should be an injunction to stop unreasonable interference
Nuisance requires interference ‘unreasonable’ assess all circumstances, but conduct no need
MUST PROVE
(1) AN UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE;
(2) WITH C’S USE OR ENJOYMENT OF HIS OR HER LAND – show has right or exclusive possession
(3) FOR WHICH D IS RESPONSIBLE
INTERFERENCE
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]: ‘3 kinds of private nuisance.(1) nuisance by encroachment on a
neighbour's land; (2) direct physical injury to a neighbour's land; and (3) nuisance by interference
with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land’ (most common i.e. loud noises, smells etc)
o Facts: erection of buildings in Canary Wharf affected TV receptions held no right of action in
nuisance for interference of TV reception + interest in property required for nuisance action
Midtown v London Property [1904]: claimants right of light to building interference= nuisance
UNREASONABLENESS OF INTERFERENCE see if ‘Reasonable user’
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties [1994]
Reasonable user would have to put up with a certain amount of annoyance, cannot merely sue for
minor things as then too much lawsuits
FACTORS TO SEE IF CONDUCT AMOUNTS TO ‘UNREASONABLE USER’
LOCALITY OF THE NUISANCE – see planning permissions + character of neighbourhood
Sturges v Bridgman [1879]: leading case, Court stated what would be a nuisance in Belgrave square
would not be in a less posh area – some areas court would expect to put up with things that would
not in other areas – depends on kind of area e.g. living in countryside and there is pig noises cannot
claim courts look at locality
Helen’s Smelting v Tipping [1865]: claimant got house with 1300 acres of land close to D copper
smelting business, damage caused by smelting works to crops + trees, other industrial businesses in
locality held where physical damage, locality principle irrelevant injunction restrain works
’Reasonable user’ considers Ds use of land not effect on claimant where no material damage
Reasonable user different from conduct, as some activities unreasonable even if careful
Coventry v Lawrence [2014]: racing stadium, claimants brought a house there, complained about
noise, local authority served notice for noise reduction works, works completed, claimant action in
nuisance held planning permission did not authorise nuisance even by changing character of
neighbourhood planning permission not same as statutory authority (given by local authority)
1
,SENSITIVITY OF CLAIMANT’S USE OF LAND – not protect sensitive claimants
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]: hot dry air cellar caused damage to brown paper stored by plaintiff, on
the floor above, ordinary paper would not have been damaged claim failed not ordinary use and
enjoyment of neighbour’s property
-Courts see whether a reasonable person would find it interfering
DURATION OF THE INTERFERENCE
Crown River v Kimbolton [1996]: fireworks display some of fireworks landed on claimant’s boat and
made it catch fire; it was only 20minutesproperty damage so nuisance still despite short time
PUBLIC BENEFIT (relevant only when considering remedy)
Approach of courts, they look at public benefit to see what remedy to use
Miller v Jackson [1977]: cricket, claimants moved next to cricket grounds, asked for an injunction to
shut down cricket groundnuisance as regular – public benefit only relevant for remedy
Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]: D Ministry of Defence, was practising a low level flying next to
Dennis’s home, very annoyed by loud noises, RAF argued they have to practise it somewhere and
wherever they go there would be someone that would be annoyed, as they need it for public
securitynuisance but important so claimant got damages (950k) bur RAF still able to practice
MALICE –Whether D was malicious in producing the interference
Christie v Davey [1893]: claimants music teachers, taught lessons at home, semi-detached house
and D lived on other side of wall, D wrote letter to claimant expressing annoyance, claimants ignored
letter, when heard music lessons he knocked on walls and made noises, he argued practice his own
music held he was annoying neighbours, claimants not liable as not malicious he was malicious
Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936]: animal being bread in Silver Fox Farm, argument between D and
claimant, D took revenge as asked son to fire shot gun making animals nervous and affecting
breading, court argued D was malicious damages + injunction
WHO CAN SUE?
Only sue if have RIGHT IN LAND AFFECTED or have EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION of land
Need to have a legal interest in land with possession e.g. as tenant, licensee, with full control
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]: building interfered with TV reception, many claimants some
children, court held children cannot sue as not have exclusive possession or do not have right in land
Damages in nuisance are calculated with a ‘loss of rent’ calculation: of the property were rented,
how much less would a tenant be able to pay the claimant to rent it in its ‘damaged’ state
Dust may constitute a nuisance if it reduces the value of the claimant’s land
Note impact of Article 8 ECHR: so if cannot sue in nuisance, may do in Art.8 where there is
unreasonable interference with private home e.g. if caused by public authority
Dobson v Thames Water [2009]: court stated where people have right in land affect can sue, if do
not then might be able to sue in Art.8 (right for private life)
2
, WHO CAN BE SUED?
-What is the necessary relationship with D and the nuisance simplest if where occupier is also
creator of nuisance, similar to servant or agent of occupier, harder for tenants + licenses
-Occupier who adopts or continues nuisance created by a trespasser: things on land producing
nuisance, something put by trespasser and occupier starts using it, if take reasonable steps to stop it
then not liable, but if use it liable
Occupiers who do not create nuisance (nonfeasance)
Created by someone else e.g. previous occupier, then adopted by occupier where makes use of
whatever constitutes as the nuisance, sufficient even if created by a trespasser, there are positive
duties for nuisances arising on land even where occupier is not originator which require occupier
to take ‘reasonable steps’ to abate (decrease) the nuisance + standard subjective
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940]
Pipe was laid on Ds land without knowledge or consent by a trespasser, after became aware a
grating was placed on pipe, became blocked and water overflowed plaintiff’s land held D had
sufficient connection with nuisance as adapted + continued it sufficient for liability in nuisance
Knowledge + opportunity take steps to abate amounts to sufficient link
Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough Council [2000]: hotel, landslide, council owned undercliff between the
cliff and sea, sea eroded as council did not prevent causing massive landslide, hotel fell, nuisance
created by nature, claimants argued landowners owed a duty of care held no liability as would not
be fair just and reasonable to impose liability, extent of landslide was not reasonably foreseeable
Goldman v Hargrave [1967]: Lightning set fire Ds tree, let burn out, fire spread to neighbours
adjoining property, damage liable 3 conditions for adjoining neighbour cases (D satisfied all)
(1) D knowledge of danger, (2) damage foreseeable consequence, (3) D had ability abate foreseeable
consequence occurring appears like a negligence case, but also raises issue of positive duty
Nuisance created by tenants + licensees
Hussain v Lancaster Council [2000]: claimant argued tenants were being racist against him, and
council should be liable for not stoppingheld landlord not liable for tenants in nuisance, unless
authorised tenants for the nuisance, just knowledge of nuisance not same as authorising
Lippiatt v Gloucester Council [2000]: Ds allowed some gypsies to reside on their land, adjacent to
claimant’s land, gypsies caused nuisance on claimant’s land held liable as council’s land was used
as a base for nuisance and there was no highway involved, direct adjacency distinction= if landlord
ceased occupation as tenant occupier
‘Landlord who granted a tenancy is not in general liable in nuisance if tenant commits tort’
Nonfeasance and statute
Marcic v Thames Water [2004]: held sewage undertaker liable in nuisance for external flooding by
foul water suffered by plaintiff’s home + COA suggested taking ‘reasonable steps’ to alleviate a
nuisance was a defence, if remedy under nuisance not sufficient, could have used HRA 1998 Held
damages restricted to statutory ones + issues of Art. ECHR private and family life serious
interference with their home, burden of justifying interference rests with Thames Water ‘even so,
claim under HR law failed because of existence of statutory remedy’ (D regulated under 1991 Act)
3
-One of the oldest torts longer history then negligence
-2 forms: PRIVATE and PUBLIC nuisance
PRIVATE NUISANCE
Private= unreasonable interference with use + enjoyment of land or some right over it
NATURE OF PRIVATE NUISANCE
No requirement conduct of D is careless but must be some unreasonableness
Nuisance is strict liability
Nuisances can be continuing can be deliberate activities, issue is for continuing nuisances is
whether should be an injunction to stop unreasonable interference
Nuisance requires interference ‘unreasonable’ assess all circumstances, but conduct no need
MUST PROVE
(1) AN UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE;
(2) WITH C’S USE OR ENJOYMENT OF HIS OR HER LAND – show has right or exclusive possession
(3) FOR WHICH D IS RESPONSIBLE
INTERFERENCE
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]: ‘3 kinds of private nuisance.(1) nuisance by encroachment on a
neighbour's land; (2) direct physical injury to a neighbour's land; and (3) nuisance by interference
with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land’ (most common i.e. loud noises, smells etc)
o Facts: erection of buildings in Canary Wharf affected TV receptions held no right of action in
nuisance for interference of TV reception + interest in property required for nuisance action
Midtown v London Property [1904]: claimants right of light to building interference= nuisance
UNREASONABLENESS OF INTERFERENCE see if ‘Reasonable user’
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties [1994]
Reasonable user would have to put up with a certain amount of annoyance, cannot merely sue for
minor things as then too much lawsuits
FACTORS TO SEE IF CONDUCT AMOUNTS TO ‘UNREASONABLE USER’
LOCALITY OF THE NUISANCE – see planning permissions + character of neighbourhood
Sturges v Bridgman [1879]: leading case, Court stated what would be a nuisance in Belgrave square
would not be in a less posh area – some areas court would expect to put up with things that would
not in other areas – depends on kind of area e.g. living in countryside and there is pig noises cannot
claim courts look at locality
Helen’s Smelting v Tipping [1865]: claimant got house with 1300 acres of land close to D copper
smelting business, damage caused by smelting works to crops + trees, other industrial businesses in
locality held where physical damage, locality principle irrelevant injunction restrain works
’Reasonable user’ considers Ds use of land not effect on claimant where no material damage
Reasonable user different from conduct, as some activities unreasonable even if careful
Coventry v Lawrence [2014]: racing stadium, claimants brought a house there, complained about
noise, local authority served notice for noise reduction works, works completed, claimant action in
nuisance held planning permission did not authorise nuisance even by changing character of
neighbourhood planning permission not same as statutory authority (given by local authority)
1
,SENSITIVITY OF CLAIMANT’S USE OF LAND – not protect sensitive claimants
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]: hot dry air cellar caused damage to brown paper stored by plaintiff, on
the floor above, ordinary paper would not have been damaged claim failed not ordinary use and
enjoyment of neighbour’s property
-Courts see whether a reasonable person would find it interfering
DURATION OF THE INTERFERENCE
Crown River v Kimbolton [1996]: fireworks display some of fireworks landed on claimant’s boat and
made it catch fire; it was only 20minutesproperty damage so nuisance still despite short time
PUBLIC BENEFIT (relevant only when considering remedy)
Approach of courts, they look at public benefit to see what remedy to use
Miller v Jackson [1977]: cricket, claimants moved next to cricket grounds, asked for an injunction to
shut down cricket groundnuisance as regular – public benefit only relevant for remedy
Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]: D Ministry of Defence, was practising a low level flying next to
Dennis’s home, very annoyed by loud noises, RAF argued they have to practise it somewhere and
wherever they go there would be someone that would be annoyed, as they need it for public
securitynuisance but important so claimant got damages (950k) bur RAF still able to practice
MALICE –Whether D was malicious in producing the interference
Christie v Davey [1893]: claimants music teachers, taught lessons at home, semi-detached house
and D lived on other side of wall, D wrote letter to claimant expressing annoyance, claimants ignored
letter, when heard music lessons he knocked on walls and made noises, he argued practice his own
music held he was annoying neighbours, claimants not liable as not malicious he was malicious
Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936]: animal being bread in Silver Fox Farm, argument between D and
claimant, D took revenge as asked son to fire shot gun making animals nervous and affecting
breading, court argued D was malicious damages + injunction
WHO CAN SUE?
Only sue if have RIGHT IN LAND AFFECTED or have EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION of land
Need to have a legal interest in land with possession e.g. as tenant, licensee, with full control
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]: building interfered with TV reception, many claimants some
children, court held children cannot sue as not have exclusive possession or do not have right in land
Damages in nuisance are calculated with a ‘loss of rent’ calculation: of the property were rented,
how much less would a tenant be able to pay the claimant to rent it in its ‘damaged’ state
Dust may constitute a nuisance if it reduces the value of the claimant’s land
Note impact of Article 8 ECHR: so if cannot sue in nuisance, may do in Art.8 where there is
unreasonable interference with private home e.g. if caused by public authority
Dobson v Thames Water [2009]: court stated where people have right in land affect can sue, if do
not then might be able to sue in Art.8 (right for private life)
2
, WHO CAN BE SUED?
-What is the necessary relationship with D and the nuisance simplest if where occupier is also
creator of nuisance, similar to servant or agent of occupier, harder for tenants + licenses
-Occupier who adopts or continues nuisance created by a trespasser: things on land producing
nuisance, something put by trespasser and occupier starts using it, if take reasonable steps to stop it
then not liable, but if use it liable
Occupiers who do not create nuisance (nonfeasance)
Created by someone else e.g. previous occupier, then adopted by occupier where makes use of
whatever constitutes as the nuisance, sufficient even if created by a trespasser, there are positive
duties for nuisances arising on land even where occupier is not originator which require occupier
to take ‘reasonable steps’ to abate (decrease) the nuisance + standard subjective
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940]
Pipe was laid on Ds land without knowledge or consent by a trespasser, after became aware a
grating was placed on pipe, became blocked and water overflowed plaintiff’s land held D had
sufficient connection with nuisance as adapted + continued it sufficient for liability in nuisance
Knowledge + opportunity take steps to abate amounts to sufficient link
Holbeck Hotel v Scarborough Council [2000]: hotel, landslide, council owned undercliff between the
cliff and sea, sea eroded as council did not prevent causing massive landslide, hotel fell, nuisance
created by nature, claimants argued landowners owed a duty of care held no liability as would not
be fair just and reasonable to impose liability, extent of landslide was not reasonably foreseeable
Goldman v Hargrave [1967]: Lightning set fire Ds tree, let burn out, fire spread to neighbours
adjoining property, damage liable 3 conditions for adjoining neighbour cases (D satisfied all)
(1) D knowledge of danger, (2) damage foreseeable consequence, (3) D had ability abate foreseeable
consequence occurring appears like a negligence case, but also raises issue of positive duty
Nuisance created by tenants + licensees
Hussain v Lancaster Council [2000]: claimant argued tenants were being racist against him, and
council should be liable for not stoppingheld landlord not liable for tenants in nuisance, unless
authorised tenants for the nuisance, just knowledge of nuisance not same as authorising
Lippiatt v Gloucester Council [2000]: Ds allowed some gypsies to reside on their land, adjacent to
claimant’s land, gypsies caused nuisance on claimant’s land held liable as council’s land was used
as a base for nuisance and there was no highway involved, direct adjacency distinction= if landlord
ceased occupation as tenant occupier
‘Landlord who granted a tenancy is not in general liable in nuisance if tenant commits tort’
Nonfeasance and statute
Marcic v Thames Water [2004]: held sewage undertaker liable in nuisance for external flooding by
foul water suffered by plaintiff’s home + COA suggested taking ‘reasonable steps’ to alleviate a
nuisance was a defence, if remedy under nuisance not sufficient, could have used HRA 1998 Held
damages restricted to statutory ones + issues of Art. ECHR private and family life serious
interference with their home, burden of justifying interference rests with Thames Water ‘even so,
claim under HR law failed because of existence of statutory remedy’ (D regulated under 1991 Act)
3
