CASES Private Nuisance
Winfield- definition private nuisance
1. Hunter v Canary Wharf – who can sue, legal interest, not normally owners’ family unless name on legal
documents
2. Page Motors v Epsom- who can be sued, council adopted nuisance by not stopping travellers moving
on the land
3. No case unlawful interference must be indirect
Likely interferences:
• Bliss v Hall - smells & fumes candle making invaded neighbour
• Bone v Seale – smell neighbours’ pigs
• Halsey v Esso Petroleum – disturbing neighbours sleep by noise and vibrations,
damage to clothes from acid smuts
• Kennaway v Thompson - noise from power boats
• Lemmon v Webb - encroaching trees
4. Interference must cause: Haley v Esso Petroleum – physical damage (acid smuts) - loss of enjoyment
(disruption to sleep) Hunter v Canary Wharf – don’t allow nuisance to protect recreational facilities (TV
reception)
Interference must be unlawful/ unreasonable – is reasonable for C to suKer with the interference
LOCALITY: Sturges v Bridgman (what would be nuisance Belgravia square not nuisance in
Bermondsey) Gillingham council v Medway (character neighbourhood change due planning permiss)
DURATION OF INTERFERENCE: Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (time of day, one
exception 20 min fireworks display property damage to boat)
SERIOUSNESS: Walter v Self (must be more than trivial interference)
SENSITIVITY OF CLAIMANT: Robinson v Kilvert (ordinary paper wouldn’t have been aKected by temp)
MALICE: Christie v Davey (christies musical activities seen not out of malice and reasonable, D’s
response was out of malice)
SOCIAL/ PUBLIC BENEFIT: Adams v Ursell (although shop had social value it was causing serious
interference with neighbours’ enjoyment)
Defences:
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining- statutory authority
Sturges v Bridgman- prescription
Sturges v Bridgman – moving to the nuisance
Remedies:
Christie v Davey – full injunction
Kennaway v Thompson – limited injunction
Haley v Esso petroleum – both injunction and damages
Miller v Jackson & Dennis v Ministry Defence – damages better public benefit more appropriate
Winfield- definition private nuisance
1. Hunter v Canary Wharf – who can sue, legal interest, not normally owners’ family unless name on legal
documents
2. Page Motors v Epsom- who can be sued, council adopted nuisance by not stopping travellers moving
on the land
3. No case unlawful interference must be indirect
Likely interferences:
• Bliss v Hall - smells & fumes candle making invaded neighbour
• Bone v Seale – smell neighbours’ pigs
• Halsey v Esso Petroleum – disturbing neighbours sleep by noise and vibrations,
damage to clothes from acid smuts
• Kennaway v Thompson - noise from power boats
• Lemmon v Webb - encroaching trees
4. Interference must cause: Haley v Esso Petroleum – physical damage (acid smuts) - loss of enjoyment
(disruption to sleep) Hunter v Canary Wharf – don’t allow nuisance to protect recreational facilities (TV
reception)
Interference must be unlawful/ unreasonable – is reasonable for C to suKer with the interference
LOCALITY: Sturges v Bridgman (what would be nuisance Belgravia square not nuisance in
Bermondsey) Gillingham council v Medway (character neighbourhood change due planning permiss)
DURATION OF INTERFERENCE: Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (time of day, one
exception 20 min fireworks display property damage to boat)
SERIOUSNESS: Walter v Self (must be more than trivial interference)
SENSITIVITY OF CLAIMANT: Robinson v Kilvert (ordinary paper wouldn’t have been aKected by temp)
MALICE: Christie v Davey (christies musical activities seen not out of malice and reasonable, D’s
response was out of malice)
SOCIAL/ PUBLIC BENEFIT: Adams v Ursell (although shop had social value it was causing serious
interference with neighbours’ enjoyment)
Defences:
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining- statutory authority
Sturges v Bridgman- prescription
Sturges v Bridgman – moving to the nuisance
Remedies:
Christie v Davey – full injunction
Kennaway v Thompson – limited injunction
Haley v Esso petroleum – both injunction and damages
Miller v Jackson & Dennis v Ministry Defence – damages better public benefit more appropriate
