Torts Relating To Land – Nuisance
Private nuisance
Any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and
unreasonable interference with C’s land or his use or enjoyment of that
land (Bamford v Turnley)
Governing principle (per Lord Millet in Southwark London Borough
Council v Tanner): ‘good neighbourliness’
Not actionable per se = C must prove damage:
o Property damage; and/or
o ‘Sensible personal discomfort’ (unique to private nuisance)
Who can sue?
C must have a legal interest in the land required – possessionary or
proprietary: owner, tenant in possession or licensee with exclusive
possession (Hunter v Canary Wharf – claims of nuisance for CW blocking
TV reception)
o Mere permission to use or occupy the land is insufficient (Malone v
Laskey – lisensee without exclusive possession had no right to sue)
This is confirmed post-HRA 1998 in Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Who can be sued?
The creator of the nuisance can be sued, even though they may not be in
a position to end the nuisance and even though they may not be the
occupier of the land (Thomas v NUM)
The occupier of the land from where the nuisance has come = can be
liable for nuisances created by:
o Themselves (Leakey v National Trust – accumulation of mound of
earth of which NT was aware collapsed onto C’s land; could have
taken measure to prevent at relatively minor expense (vs Holbeck
below))
1
,o Third parties, due to control over the land, although they will only
be held liable in exceptional circumstances...
Independent contractors – in rare circumstances,
occupiers may be liable = where occupier has asked the
independent contractor onto their land to perform certain
tasks, which cause a reasonably foreseeable nuisance:
Bamford v Turnley – Building work does not
normally form the basis of a private nuisance claim,
as people are expected to put up with a certain
amount of ‘give and take’
Matania v National Provincial Bank – occupier liable
for foreseeable excessive noise + dust caused by
property alterations, as these prevented C, a music
teacher, from earning his living
Predecessors in title – new occupier not liable, unless they
continue the nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – D
used poorly maintained pipe, which leaked onto C’s land,
and was thus liable, even though local authority had laid it)
Naturally occurring nuisances or natural condition of
the land – occupier has a duty to take reasonable steps to
abate a naturally occurring nuisance, where they know or
ought to know of a danger (Goldman v Hargrave – PC:
failure to properly extinguish a fire started by lightening)
This duty is subject to the means of the occupier,
who will not be expected to bankrupt himself in the
process of averting the nuisance (Holbeck Hall Hotel
v Scarborough BC – council not liable for land slip)
The occupier will only be required to take steps the
court considers fair, just and reasonable given the
resources available to both D and C, and taking into
account the competing demands and public purpose
of funds of public authority defendants (Vernon
Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council – funds
were available and risk of flooding was very high, so
liable)
2
, The owner, including the Landlord of the land from where the nuisance
is coming
o Not liable unless (Coventry v Lawrence):
Created nuisance
Authorised nuisance (by actively and directly participating
in it)
Knew or ought to have known of a very high degree of
probability that leasing the land would result in a nuisance
Have expressly or impliedly reserved the right to enter and
repair
o Tetley v Chitty – landlord leased premises to go-cart club, creating
noise for which he was liable, as he gave his permission for use of
the land for this purpose + noise was inevitable
o Hussain v Lancaster City Council – H claimed LCC liable for
nuisance for failure to institute possession proceedings against
tenants who had committed racial harassment vs H; HELD:
landlord not generally liable unless he had authorised the tenant
to commit the nuisance
o Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council – SGC had allowed
travellers to congregate on its land over 3 years and was liable
both for nuisance on its land and for nuisances by the licensees
occurring away from its land = Hussain distinguished, as presence
continuing + SGC had knowledge of harmful acts on C’s land ~
here local authority: had responsibilities towards travellers to
provide them with accommodation + had resources at its disposal
to deal with this
o Coventry v Lawrence – 2014 SC case = distinguish from Tetley,
contrast with ruling in Lippiatt – nuisance had not been
inevitable at time of letting + the landlord’s awareness of the
nuisance and lack of action to stop or discourage it was
insufficient to establish liability
3
Private nuisance
Any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and
unreasonable interference with C’s land or his use or enjoyment of that
land (Bamford v Turnley)
Governing principle (per Lord Millet in Southwark London Borough
Council v Tanner): ‘good neighbourliness’
Not actionable per se = C must prove damage:
o Property damage; and/or
o ‘Sensible personal discomfort’ (unique to private nuisance)
Who can sue?
C must have a legal interest in the land required – possessionary or
proprietary: owner, tenant in possession or licensee with exclusive
possession (Hunter v Canary Wharf – claims of nuisance for CW blocking
TV reception)
o Mere permission to use or occupy the land is insufficient (Malone v
Laskey – lisensee without exclusive possession had no right to sue)
This is confirmed post-HRA 1998 in Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Who can be sued?
The creator of the nuisance can be sued, even though they may not be in
a position to end the nuisance and even though they may not be the
occupier of the land (Thomas v NUM)
The occupier of the land from where the nuisance has come = can be
liable for nuisances created by:
o Themselves (Leakey v National Trust – accumulation of mound of
earth of which NT was aware collapsed onto C’s land; could have
taken measure to prevent at relatively minor expense (vs Holbeck
below))
1
,o Third parties, due to control over the land, although they will only
be held liable in exceptional circumstances...
Independent contractors – in rare circumstances,
occupiers may be liable = where occupier has asked the
independent contractor onto their land to perform certain
tasks, which cause a reasonably foreseeable nuisance:
Bamford v Turnley – Building work does not
normally form the basis of a private nuisance claim,
as people are expected to put up with a certain
amount of ‘give and take’
Matania v National Provincial Bank – occupier liable
for foreseeable excessive noise + dust caused by
property alterations, as these prevented C, a music
teacher, from earning his living
Predecessors in title – new occupier not liable, unless they
continue the nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan – D
used poorly maintained pipe, which leaked onto C’s land,
and was thus liable, even though local authority had laid it)
Naturally occurring nuisances or natural condition of
the land – occupier has a duty to take reasonable steps to
abate a naturally occurring nuisance, where they know or
ought to know of a danger (Goldman v Hargrave – PC:
failure to properly extinguish a fire started by lightening)
This duty is subject to the means of the occupier,
who will not be expected to bankrupt himself in the
process of averting the nuisance (Holbeck Hall Hotel
v Scarborough BC – council not liable for land slip)
The occupier will only be required to take steps the
court considers fair, just and reasonable given the
resources available to both D and C, and taking into
account the competing demands and public purpose
of funds of public authority defendants (Vernon
Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council – funds
were available and risk of flooding was very high, so
liable)
2
, The owner, including the Landlord of the land from where the nuisance
is coming
o Not liable unless (Coventry v Lawrence):
Created nuisance
Authorised nuisance (by actively and directly participating
in it)
Knew or ought to have known of a very high degree of
probability that leasing the land would result in a nuisance
Have expressly or impliedly reserved the right to enter and
repair
o Tetley v Chitty – landlord leased premises to go-cart club, creating
noise for which he was liable, as he gave his permission for use of
the land for this purpose + noise was inevitable
o Hussain v Lancaster City Council – H claimed LCC liable for
nuisance for failure to institute possession proceedings against
tenants who had committed racial harassment vs H; HELD:
landlord not generally liable unless he had authorised the tenant
to commit the nuisance
o Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council – SGC had allowed
travellers to congregate on its land over 3 years and was liable
both for nuisance on its land and for nuisances by the licensees
occurring away from its land = Hussain distinguished, as presence
continuing + SGC had knowledge of harmful acts on C’s land ~
here local authority: had responsibilities towards travellers to
provide them with accommodation + had resources at its disposal
to deal with this
o Coventry v Lawrence – 2014 SC case = distinguish from Tetley,
contrast with ruling in Lippiatt – nuisance had not been
inevitable at time of letting + the landlord’s awareness of the
nuisance and lack of action to stop or discourage it was
insufficient to establish liability
3
