Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Private nuisance - a tort claim where someone’s use or enjoyment of their property is
affected by the unreasonable behaviour of a neighbour
Types of private nuisance - 1) loss of amenity nuisance 2) material damage nuisance
Loss of amenity nuisance - nuisance caused by noise, smell, smoke
Material damage nuisance - when dangerous state of affairs on D’s land causes significant
physical damage to claimant's land eg. tree roots causing subsidence
Claimant must have interest in property - being owner or renter, so minors will not be able
to bring the action
Tetley v Chitty - D must be causing or allowing nuisance
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan - D can be liable if they ‘adopt’ the nuisance
Leakey v National Trust - D can also be liable if nuisance is a result of natural causes and
they know of the risk but fails to deal with it (also seen in Anthony v The Coal Authority)
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd - HoL confirmed that members of household who do not have
interest in land can not claim + claimant can not take action to protect a right to view of the
surrounding countryside, right to light, or interference to television reception
D does not need to have interest in the land
Elements of Private Nuisance - ‘unlawful’, ‘indirect interference’
‘Unlawful’ - means unreasonable and affects enjoyment of the land
‘Direct interference’ - affects physically
‘Indirect interference’ - eg. fumes drifting over neighbouring land, smell of farm animals,
noise
Protect people of emotional distress - Thompson Schwab v Costaki, running of Brothel in
respectable residential area was held as nuisance + Laws v Florinplace Ltd, injunction
awarded when sex shop was opened
Factors of reasonableness - locality, duration of interference, sensitivity of claimant,
malice, social benefit
Locality - look at locations of each party, and see whether actions are suitable eg. Hirose,
claimant had no claim as they were on an industrial estate which meant that there would be
a variety of operating businesses
, Halsey v Esso - example of looking at area (lived near petroleum factory with smell)
Duration of interference - look at how long its going on for
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks - firework display only lasted 20 minutes
Sensitivity of the claimant - Robinson v Kilvert, the brown paper was held as being
delicate and sensitive + Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris, use of amplified electric guitars
held to be abnormally sensitive
Malice - is D acting with ill will i.e. Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, fell out with
neighbour and told son to frighten minks to stop them from breeding = amounted to nuisance
as it was out of malice + Christie v Davey, D banged wall and shouted because he was
annoyed with neighbour
Social Benefit - Will not be nuisance if D is provided a social/good benefit, Miller v Jackson,
cricket club was seen as good for community use so D was not guilty
Adams v Ursell - fish and chip shop caused to close because of the smell
Dennis v Ministry of Defence - training pilots for the benefit of the country
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc - chances of it happening was
unforeseeable/ too remote
Defences - prescription, moving to the nuisance, statutory authority
Prescription - if action has been carried on for at least 20 years and there has been no
complaints in that time eg. Sturges v Bridgeman, defence failed as time had started when
doctor built consulting room
Moving to nuisance - D may argue claimant is only suffering as he/she has chosen to move
to the alleged issue eg. Sturges v Bridgeman & Miller v Jackson
Statutory authority - if Parliament has given authority to build or operate something, than
the defendant can use this defence
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining - if given statutory authority to build it, they are likely to have
authority to operate it
Marcic v Thames Water plc - no nuisance was allowed as it would go against intention of
Parliament (Water Industry Act 1991)
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway - local authority planning permission can, in some
circumstances, act in the same way as lawful justification for a nuisance (changes
characteristics from residential to commercial)
Private nuisance - a tort claim where someone’s use or enjoyment of their property is
affected by the unreasonable behaviour of a neighbour
Types of private nuisance - 1) loss of amenity nuisance 2) material damage nuisance
Loss of amenity nuisance - nuisance caused by noise, smell, smoke
Material damage nuisance - when dangerous state of affairs on D’s land causes significant
physical damage to claimant's land eg. tree roots causing subsidence
Claimant must have interest in property - being owner or renter, so minors will not be able
to bring the action
Tetley v Chitty - D must be causing or allowing nuisance
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan - D can be liable if they ‘adopt’ the nuisance
Leakey v National Trust - D can also be liable if nuisance is a result of natural causes and
they know of the risk but fails to deal with it (also seen in Anthony v The Coal Authority)
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd - HoL confirmed that members of household who do not have
interest in land can not claim + claimant can not take action to protect a right to view of the
surrounding countryside, right to light, or interference to television reception
D does not need to have interest in the land
Elements of Private Nuisance - ‘unlawful’, ‘indirect interference’
‘Unlawful’ - means unreasonable and affects enjoyment of the land
‘Direct interference’ - affects physically
‘Indirect interference’ - eg. fumes drifting over neighbouring land, smell of farm animals,
noise
Protect people of emotional distress - Thompson Schwab v Costaki, running of Brothel in
respectable residential area was held as nuisance + Laws v Florinplace Ltd, injunction
awarded when sex shop was opened
Factors of reasonableness - locality, duration of interference, sensitivity of claimant,
malice, social benefit
Locality - look at locations of each party, and see whether actions are suitable eg. Hirose,
claimant had no claim as they were on an industrial estate which meant that there would be
a variety of operating businesses
, Halsey v Esso - example of looking at area (lived near petroleum factory with smell)
Duration of interference - look at how long its going on for
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks - firework display only lasted 20 minutes
Sensitivity of the claimant - Robinson v Kilvert, the brown paper was held as being
delicate and sensitive + Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris, use of amplified electric guitars
held to be abnormally sensitive
Malice - is D acting with ill will i.e. Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, fell out with
neighbour and told son to frighten minks to stop them from breeding = amounted to nuisance
as it was out of malice + Christie v Davey, D banged wall and shouted because he was
annoyed with neighbour
Social Benefit - Will not be nuisance if D is provided a social/good benefit, Miller v Jackson,
cricket club was seen as good for community use so D was not guilty
Adams v Ursell - fish and chip shop caused to close because of the smell
Dennis v Ministry of Defence - training pilots for the benefit of the country
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc - chances of it happening was
unforeseeable/ too remote
Defences - prescription, moving to the nuisance, statutory authority
Prescription - if action has been carried on for at least 20 years and there has been no
complaints in that time eg. Sturges v Bridgeman, defence failed as time had started when
doctor built consulting room
Moving to nuisance - D may argue claimant is only suffering as he/she has chosen to move
to the alleged issue eg. Sturges v Bridgeman & Miller v Jackson
Statutory authority - if Parliament has given authority to build or operate something, than
the defendant can use this defence
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining - if given statutory authority to build it, they are likely to have
authority to operate it
Marcic v Thames Water plc - no nuisance was allowed as it would go against intention of
Parliament (Water Industry Act 1991)
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway - local authority planning permission can, in some
circumstances, act in the same way as lawful justification for a nuisance (changes
characteristics from residential to commercial)
