Definition Supporting case law and legal
principle
What is private The unreasonable use of Man of his land to the Miller v Jackson (1977)
nuisance? detriment of his neighbour.
Step 1 ‘Exclusive possession’? Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
Required for a claim to succeed -construction of the wharf was
INTEREST IN THE blocking residents tv signal.
LAND Examples of people with / without interest in the Cofa allowed claim from occupiers of
land home but the House of Lords Reversed
Lodgers, visitors, children don’t have interest. this and sated that a proprietary
Owners/occupiers, tenants, and landlords (only if interest was needed as stated in:
long term damage to property do). molone v Laskey (1907)
-Toilet cistern fell on c head due to
vibrations form neighbour. No claim
as she was the wife and had no
property interest. She was merely
there.
Khorasanjon v bush (1993)
-Daughter of the c was harassed.
Private nuisance succeeded due to
the need for an injunction to protect
her (prior to harassment act)
Step 2 1)Character of the neighbourhood 1)Sturges v bridgam; Established that
What is reasonable depends on the location that what is reasonable in one location is
UNREASONABLE USE it takes place. This is not relevant where there is not in another depending on the
OF THE LAND physical damage. character of the neighbourhood.
2)Robinson V kilvert; heat from
2)sensitivity of the claimant another building disrupted use of heat
Nuisance is determined by considering its effect sensitive paper. HELD; use of land
on a reasonable person + ordinary use of land. would not be unreasonable just
because it affects someone with a
3)duration of the nuisance sensitivity unless it effects the
A nuisance must be continuous. Just needs to reasonable use of land and ordinary
have some consistency to the disturbance. enjoyment of life.
4)Miller v Jackson; public cricket
4)Public benefit outweighs a private garden.
The greater the general utility of the ds actions 5) Hollywood silver fox farm v
the less Likely it will amount to nuisance. Unless Emmett
other factors like fail to protect from disturbance D shot his gun repeatedly to disturb
play a part. neighbour farm. HELD; it was not
unreasonable to use his gun but the
5)Malice fact he did so to disturb the
If the d acts out of malice or spite his actions are neighbours changed the character of
mote likely to be deemed unreasonable even if his actions, so the claim was
they would be reasonable. actionable.
Step 3 3 types of harm:
1)Encroachment onto neighbour’s land Wagon mound: damage to wharf by
HARM SUFFERED oil was foreseeable but damage by
2)physical injury to property fire was not. Interference must be
foreseeable.
3)interference with enjoyment of land
Hunter v canary: just because
‘Reasonably foreseeable’ something is an annoyance does not
Interference must be predicable mean that its actionable in private
‘Substantial’ nuisance. Interference must be
Interference must be more than a little substantial.
annoyance.
principle
What is private The unreasonable use of Man of his land to the Miller v Jackson (1977)
nuisance? detriment of his neighbour.
Step 1 ‘Exclusive possession’? Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
Required for a claim to succeed -construction of the wharf was
INTEREST IN THE blocking residents tv signal.
LAND Examples of people with / without interest in the Cofa allowed claim from occupiers of
land home but the House of Lords Reversed
Lodgers, visitors, children don’t have interest. this and sated that a proprietary
Owners/occupiers, tenants, and landlords (only if interest was needed as stated in:
long term damage to property do). molone v Laskey (1907)
-Toilet cistern fell on c head due to
vibrations form neighbour. No claim
as she was the wife and had no
property interest. She was merely
there.
Khorasanjon v bush (1993)
-Daughter of the c was harassed.
Private nuisance succeeded due to
the need for an injunction to protect
her (prior to harassment act)
Step 2 1)Character of the neighbourhood 1)Sturges v bridgam; Established that
What is reasonable depends on the location that what is reasonable in one location is
UNREASONABLE USE it takes place. This is not relevant where there is not in another depending on the
OF THE LAND physical damage. character of the neighbourhood.
2)Robinson V kilvert; heat from
2)sensitivity of the claimant another building disrupted use of heat
Nuisance is determined by considering its effect sensitive paper. HELD; use of land
on a reasonable person + ordinary use of land. would not be unreasonable just
because it affects someone with a
3)duration of the nuisance sensitivity unless it effects the
A nuisance must be continuous. Just needs to reasonable use of land and ordinary
have some consistency to the disturbance. enjoyment of life.
4)Miller v Jackson; public cricket
4)Public benefit outweighs a private garden.
The greater the general utility of the ds actions 5) Hollywood silver fox farm v
the less Likely it will amount to nuisance. Unless Emmett
other factors like fail to protect from disturbance D shot his gun repeatedly to disturb
play a part. neighbour farm. HELD; it was not
unreasonable to use his gun but the
5)Malice fact he did so to disturb the
If the d acts out of malice or spite his actions are neighbours changed the character of
mote likely to be deemed unreasonable even if his actions, so the claim was
they would be reasonable. actionable.
Step 3 3 types of harm:
1)Encroachment onto neighbour’s land Wagon mound: damage to wharf by
HARM SUFFERED oil was foreseeable but damage by
2)physical injury to property fire was not. Interference must be
foreseeable.
3)interference with enjoyment of land
Hunter v canary: just because
‘Reasonably foreseeable’ something is an annoyance does not
Interference must be predicable mean that its actionable in private
‘Substantial’ nuisance. Interference must be
Interference must be more than a little substantial.
annoyance.
