Private Nuisance

Definition

An unlawful, undirect, interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land.

Claimants

Claimant must have a proprietary (legal) interest in the land. This will cover the owner of land but also an occupier who has a lease or tenancy of the land. It will not cover someone who is simply permitted to use the land (a licensee)

Malone v Laskey

• Toilet cistern fell from the wall after her husband pulled a tap handle

• sued occupier for building negligence

• not liable

• hidden danger

Hunter v Canary Wharf

• Tv interference was not a private nuisance

• Only people with a legal interest in land can sue

• canary wharf group was not liable

Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co LTD (Defendant)

• Oil tanker ran a ground near southport and discharged oil onto a beach

• Tanker captain deliberately released oil to prevent greater danger

• No negligence,

Tetley v Chitty (Defendant)

• Go kart created an ongoing risk and disturbance to neighbouring people.

• Approving unsafe layout, council contributed to hazardous land

• Council was liable

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

• local authority installed a drainage pipe on D’s land without permission. Pipe became blocked causing flood on Cs land

• D liable as they were aware of hazard.

Leakey v National Trust

• large mound on the national trust’s land because unstable and soil slipped onto neighbouring property.

• knew danger was liable

Anthony and Others v The Coal Authority

Facts:

• Residents lived near a coal spoil tip.

• The tip caught fire, producing smoke and fumes for several years.

• Residents claimed this was a private nuisance.

Verdict:

• Coal Authority held liable for nuisance.

• The risk of fire had become foreseeable.

• They failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the nuisance.

Key principle:

• Once a danger becomes foreseeable, the defendant must take reasonable steps to abate it.

Indirect Interferences

• Loud noises including gunfire - Hollywood Silver Fox farm v Emmett

• Noise and Vibrations from industrial machinery - Sturges v Bridgman

• Fumes drifting over neighbouring land - Bliss v Hall

• Hot air rising into a neighbour’s premises - Robinson v Kilvert

• Smuts from a fuel depot’s chimneys - Hasley v esso Petroleum

• Continuous interference from cricket balls - Miller v Jackson

Locality - sturges v bridgman

• A doctor built consulting room next to a confectioner’s kitchen. Noise from confectioner’s machinery disturbed the doctor’s work

• Liable

Duration of interference - Crown river cruises LTD v Kimbolton Fireworks

• Firework from a display landed on a bungee owned by crown river cruises and caused a fire damaging the vessel.

• Liable due to unreasonable interference and foreseeable.

Sensitivity of Claimants land - Robinson v Kilvert

• Heat from D’s business damaged the claimant’s unusually sensitive paper sorted nearby

• No nuisance as heat would not have harmed ordinary property.

Network Rail infrastructure v Morris (2004)

• D repeatedly struck a metal fence beside a railway line causing vibrations and noise that interfered with railway service

• liable

Malice - Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936)

• D fired guns near the claimants’ fox farm intending to frighten the foxes during breeding season, causing harm to animals

• liable due to malice.

Christie v Davey

• C gave music lessons at home. in response the D deliberately banged on walls and made loud noises to distrupt the lessons

• Liable

Social benefit - Miller v Jackson

• Cricket balls from a nearby cricket ground were frequently hit into the C’s garden.

• Liable but allowed club to continue and awarded damages

Adams v Ursell

• D operated a fish + chip shop and it produced smells and noise which disturbed neighbours

• liable due to unreasonable interference.

Prescription

20 years of the action being done to the same D and C

Sturges v Bridgman

• operated noisy machinery for many years

• noise + vibrations interfered doctor’s ability to work

• Court favoured doctor as long standing activity did not prevent the doctor from bringing a claim.

Statutory Authority

public body is allowed to cause a nuisance if it is acting in accordance with legislation.

allen v gulf oil refining

• oil refinery granted an act of parliament

• locals complained about the noise but it was given authority.

Marcic v Thames Water

• C properly was repeatedly flooded with sewage

• complained for years

• thames not liable due to regulatory process.

Planning permission

can in some circumstances act as lawful justification for the nuisance.

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock CO

• Chatham Dockyard was redeveloped into a commercial port after planning permission

• Increased noise and traffic

• residents complained about disturbance

• not liable

Wheeler v Saunders

• D obtained planning permissions to build pig rearing units on farmland

• build near c’s farmhouse

• smells interfered with c’s land

• in favour of c due to actionable nuisance.

Remedies

Abatement

Injunctions