Private Nuisance case law

Sturges v Bridgeman 

The claimant, a doctor, lived next to a factory. He built a new consulting room at the end of his garden but then complained of vibrations coming from the factory. The owner argued there had been no issue for the twenty years he had owned it. The defence of pecription failed her as the nuisance only began once the consulting room was built not the 20 years before that 

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

A river barge was set alight by a firework from a twenty-minute show. It was held that the show was enough to amount to private nuisance as it had caused damage to property. Otherwise the short duration of the show would have made it insufficient for private nuisance.

Network Rail v Morris

The claimant owned a studio for music. A new railway line was built near it and this interfered with the amps in the studio causing him to lose business. Where there is very sensitive equipment it cannot be foreseeable for the company that the building of the line would cause a tort in this way. Not liable.

Christie v Davey 

The claimant was a music teacher who held lessons and parties. In retaliation the defendant had banged pots and pans. The defendant was liable as the noise was made maliciously and with full intention of causing tort. 

Bamford v Turnley 1862

In this case D was operating a brick kiln in his back garden and the fumes it produced were going into C’s garden and making them ill. This case defined private nuisance as ‘An unlawful indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment coming from neighbouring land’.

Fearn v Tate Gallery 2023

The Tate opened a new viewing gallery was opened allowing people to see directly into nearby glass apartments. This case was brought as a loss of privacy. The supreme court found them liable and came up with key points from it to define PN.

1. A violation of real property

2. Loss is an essential element but highly elastic

3. Nuisance can be cause by an omission or positive activity

4. The broad unifying principle is reasonableness between neighbours

Hunter v Canary Wharf

The claim was brought by the owner’s family against a construction company for obscuring their TV signal. Two things were decided here. 1. The claimant MUST have a proprietary interest in the affected property. 2. The nuisance cannot be something trivial like TV, the loss must be clearer.

Leakey v National Trust

A naturally occurring mound of earth slipped in heavy rain and crashed into the claimants home. Even though the nuisance was entirely caused by natural causes the NT was still liable.

Tetley v Chitty

D set up a go kart track and were found liable for it. This was in spite of them not owning the land, but the ruling here was that a defendant does NOT need a proprietary interest they just need to be causing the nuisance.

Tejani v Fitzroy

C claimed a loud noise was causing him to lose sleep. When the noise was measured it was very quiet about the same as a ticking clock. This was ruled to be insufficient for ‘unlawful’. The definition of ‘unlawful’ is a nuisance that is substantially unreasonable. NOT illegal.

Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan

Monks moved onto land with a ditch already present. They did not fill in the ditch. The ditch then caused flooding in the adjoining property. The monks were liable under the principle of adopted nuisance.

LBC Southwark v Mills

C claimed insufficient soundproofing in his flat meant he could hear others walking around. This was not ‘unlawful’ as walking around your flat is an ordinary use of the property and not substantially unreasonable.

Types of indirect interference - Amenity and Material

Material damages is where a dangerous state of affairs causes significant physical damage to the adjoining property. Amenity is the pleasantness of the a place. This includes smell, noise or fumes and is harder to prove.

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

The smell from a pig sty D had on his farm was a nuisance for C. This set a precedent that smell is enough for PN. Furthermore, D had been given planning permission to expand and argued this as a defence. However, planning permission is only a defence if its effect was to change the character of the neighbourhood which was not the case here so it failed.

Miller v Jackson

C had moved in next to a cricket club and was then hit by a ball. C claimed but the social benefit of the club reduced the compensation they could get. However, the fact c moved into the nuisance is irrelevant and not a defense.

Allen v Gulf oil refinery

Statutory Authority is where government statute has given permission for something to be built and operated. This is a strong defence as statute can invalidate nuisance claims. here statute had granted permission to build the refinery but not to operate it in any specific way so the claimants coming to court that the operation was causing nuisance was valid.

Laws v Florinplace

D opened a sex shop in a quiet residential area. C argued that under the element of locality it was an unreasonable area to have such a place as it would lower local property value and attract unwanted individuals. D had to move the shop.

Remedies in PN

An injunction to stop something or move something can be served alongside or independent from damages that can be claimed for having that nuisance for example with damage to the land that will cost money to repair.