Private Nuisance

Structure

1.Definition

2.Who can sue?

3.Who can be sued?

4.Interference must be indirect (damage to C’s property or use of land)

5. Interference must be unlawful (meaning unreasonable, use 4 factors)

6. Defences + remedies IF RELEVANT

Definition

‘an unwanted, continuous and indirect interference with the claimant’s reasonable use and enjoyment of their land‘

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Only those with an interest in the land can sue.

Tetly v Chitley + Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Those who can be sued include the persons who are causing the nuisance and those who are aware of a naturally occurring interference but allow it to continue.

St Helen’s Smelting

The interference must be indirect, meaning that the D has caused damage to C’s property of use/enjoyment of their land.

Adams v Ursell

Smell

Law v Florinplace

Emotional distress

Conventry v Lawrence

Noise

Halsey v Esso Petroleum

Heat/Oily smuts

What does not count as an interference?

An interference with purely aesthetic interests/tv reception.

Malone v Laskey

C cannot sue for personal injury

What does unlawful mean?

The interference is unreasonable- so unreasonable that the claimant is not expected to deal with it.

Sturdges v Bridgman (Locality)

‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be a nuisance in Belmondsey‘

Spicer v Smee (Duration)

Duration must be continuous, although there have been some exceptions.

Robinson v Kilvert (Abnormal sensitivity)

If the interference is due to the claimant’s abnormal sensitivity, it may be deemed reasonable

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris

(Abnormal sensitivity) The law has now returned to a test of foreseeability. So, interferences which are not reasonably foreseeable may become reasonable.

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

Where the D uses malice, then the action will likely be found unreasonable. If the C uses malice then this would likely defeat the claim and the interference would be considered reasonable.

Prescription (Sturdges v Bridgman)

If the nuisance has been actionable for 20 years or more with no complaints from the claimant.

Statutory permission (Marcic v Thames Water plc)

Where an act of parliament allows the defendant to cause the interference or prevents them from being found liable.

Planning permission (Gillingham BC v Medway)

Where the character of a neighbourhood changes to one that expects the nuisance to occur.

Social utility (Dennis v MOD)

A non-defence but it may provide a defence to an injunction

Moving to the nuisance

NOT a defence.

What remedies may be available?

Damages or injunctions where social utility applies.