Private Nuisance cases

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Owners and tenants of property in the Docklands area had a right to bring action when an office tower was built which interfered with their TV reception

​

Tetley v Chitty

D was a local authority who allowed go

​

Sedleigh Denfield

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 the pipe being laid, D was still liable when C’s land was flooded because he 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 slipped and damaged D’s cottage. D was liable as they knew that slippage might happen and failed to prevent it

​

Anthony v Coal Authority

The 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 the people living in the area. The Coal Authority were liable as they were aware of the problem when they had control of the land and failed to prevent it

​

St Helen’s Smelting

Damage to plants and crops from fumes

Halsey v Esso

Oil damage that ruined car

​

Bone v Seal

Damages were awarded for the effect of smells coming from a pig farm

Williams v Network Rail

Encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto C’s land

​

Sturges v Bridgeman

Noise and vibrations for industrial equipment in a confectioner's was a nuisance in a quiet residential area because the locality was not devoted to manufacture.

Laws v Florinplane

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

​

Robinson v Kilvert

Hear generated by D, making boxes in the basement damaged a 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 as the interference was unforeseeable

​

De Keyser’s Royal Hotel

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 nuisance as it led to strong smells.

Crown River Cruises

​

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.

​

Fearn v Tate

Supreme Court decided that social utility may be considered in deciding what remedy to grant and may justify awarding damages rather than an injunction but it does not prevent a finding of an actionable 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.

​

Sturges v Bridgeman

C was a doctor who treated patients in his house

​

Allen v Gulf Oil

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

​

Gillingham BC

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. So residents of nearby roads could not complain about the disturbance.

Watson v Croft

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

Kennaway v Thompson

Where a partial injunction was granted

Coventry v Lawrence

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.