Private Nuisance

Fearn v Tate Gallery

A use of land which substantially interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land, judged by the standards of an ordinary person.

Claimant

Must have a legal interest in the land and they have been affected by the interference.

Hunter v Canary Wharf

owners and tenants of property in the Docklands area had a right to bring an action (even though it failed) when an office tower was built which interfered with their TV reception, but not members of their families because they did not have a legal interest in the property.

Defendant

This is the person who has created the nuisance or allowed it to continue.

Tetley v Chitty

D was a local authority who allowed go-kart racing on its land and was therefore liable for the noise and disturbance caused by the go-karts.

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

D knew that a 3rd party had laid a pipe on his land which was prone to blocking and creating a risk of flooding to C’s land. Even though D had not consented to this pipe being laid in the first place, D was liable when C’s land was flooded because he had allowed the danger to continue.

Leakey v National Trust

The National Trust were aware that a large natural mound on their land could slip. One summer it did slip and damaged C’s cottage. Ds were liable as they knew that a slippage might happen and they failed to prevent it.

Anthony v Coal Authority

Coal Authority landscaped a former coal mine and then sold the land. A fire started spontaneously from coal waste on the site, causing fumes to interfere with people living in the area. The Coal Authority were liable because they were aware of the problem when they had control of the land and failed to prevent it.

Physical damage,

e.g. damage to plants or crops from fumes: St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping.

In Halsey v Esso (1961), C successfully claimed against an oil company for acid smuts from the oil depot that damaged his car. Physical damage will generally be regarded as unlawful.

Loss of amenity

(inconvenience) which affects the ordinary comfort of human existence. There is no physical damage, but C’s ability to use or enjoy his land is affected by D’s activities, e.g. excessive noises preventing sleep or smells preventing C from opening windows.

Bone v Seal

damages were awarded for the effect of smells emanating from a pig farm.

Williams v Network Rail

Court of Appeal held that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto the Claimant’s land amounted to a loss of amenity even if there was no physical damage because it carries the risk of future physical damage to buildings and the mere presence of it affects an owner’s ability to develop their property.

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The interference must relate to C’s use or enjoyment of land. interference with TV reception caused by the building of a fixed structure did not amount to an actionable nuisance, because this was not an interference with use or enjoyment of land. It was merely loss of a recreational facility – partly because other forms of reception, such as cable and satellite were available.

Unlawful interference

It must be decided whether the acts complained of were:

1. part of the ordinary use and occupation of land; and

2. whether they are conveniently done, with proper consideration for the interests of neighbours.

Sturges v Bridgman

Noise and vibrations from industrial equipment in a confectioners was a nuisance in a quiet residential area because the locality was not devoted to manufacture.

Laws v Florinplace

A sex shop in a residential area was deemed to making a substantial interference for local residents, affecting the ordinary comfort of human existence.

Robinson v Kilvert

Heat generated by D, making boxes in the basement, damaged delicate paper belonging to C on the ground floor. D was not liable as the damage was due to the special sensitivity of the paper.

Network Rail v Morris

New railway tracks interfered with sensitive recording equipment used in C’s studio. C could not claim for damage to his business because the interference was extraordinary and unforeseeable.

De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros

An injunction was granted to prevent building work at night despite the fact that the work was only temporary. The interference was unreasonable since it interfered with C’s sleep.

Barr v Biffa Waste

Storage of organic material in a landfill site was a nuisance as it led to strong garbage smells on many occasions over five years.

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

where burning debris from D’s firework display landed on a nearby barge that caught fire. D was liable despite the nuisance only lasting 20 minutes because there was physical damage.

Christie v Davey

C gave music lessons at home. D, her neighbour, started banging on the walls, beating trays and shouting in retaliation. The fact that D’s actions were motivated by malice was a factor in deciding there was a nuisance.

Miller v Jackson

Cricket balls regularly landed in C’s garden from the cricket ground nearby. The Court ruled that this was a nuisance and that the community use of the ground did not outweigh the private use of the garden. However, the court refused an injunction and awarded damages as an appropriate balance between the rights of the parties.

Prescription

If D has carried out the activity causing the nuisance for at least 20 years and C has been aware of this and not complained, D has a defence known as a “prescriptive right” to carry out the activity.

Sturges v Bridgman

C was a doctor who treated patients in his house – he then built a consulting room in his garden. He complained that the noise from D’s confectionary factory next door was a disturbance to his patients. D claimed a prescriptive right as he had used the factory for over 20 years without complaint. C won and the defence of prescription failed as the nuisance only began when the consulting room was built.

Coventry v Lawrence

Coming to a nuisance not a defence, provided C uses the property for the same purpose ashis or her predecessor.

Allen v Gulf Oil

C could not sue in nuisance about noise and fumes from an oil refinery as the refinery was built under powers in an Act of Parliament.

Gillingham BC v Medway

The granting of planning permission to turn a disused dockyard into a commercial port meant that the area around it could no longer be regarded as residential, but industrial, so residents of nearby roads could not complain about the disturbance from heavy lorries.

Watson v Croft Promo-Sport

Planning permission was granted for a motor racing track for 210 days a year. C’s claim in nuisance succeeded as the Court of Appeal felt that the planning permission had not changed the character of the area which remained essentially rural. The noise therefore constituted an actionable nuisance. An injunction was granted.

Injunction

This is a discretionary court order prohibiting or controlling an activity. In a nuisance claim, C will generally be asking the court to order that the offending activity be stopped or confined to defined limits.

Kennaway v Thompson

a partial injunction was granted limiting the number of races that D could organise at a powerboat club.

Damages

Following the decision in Coventry v Lawrence (2014), courts may be less willing to grant an injunction and it is open to D to argue that damages are a more appropriate remedy, especially if planning permission was granted for the activity in question or there is social utility.

punitive damages

extra money is awarded to C because the court disapproves of the D’s behaviour

Abatement

This is the right of the Claimant to take reasonable steps to deal with any nuisance himself, e.g. chopping off the branches of a tree overhanging a boundary, or unblocking a drain.