Private Nuisance + Rylands v Fletcher

What is needed for a successful claim under private nuisance ?

1. The claimant has standing to sue (positive proprietary/possessory interest).

2. There has been an interference with land or with the use/enjoyment of land.

3. The interference is unreasonable, judged according to the “reasonable user” test (for amenity cases).

Then do Fault

Defences

Remedies

what type of tort is PN

a property based tort so only those with a proprietary or possessory interest may sue.

case[s] relevant to standing ?

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] 

Malone v Laskey [1907] 

Dobson v Thames Water [2007]

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] 

Residents complained that a tower blocked TV signals.
Held:

• Only those with title, leasehold, or exclusive possession may sue.

• Nuisance protects interests in land, not personal comforts as such.

• Family members/visitors have no standing.

Malone v Laskey [1907] 

Wife injured by vibrations but wasn’t a tenant → no standing.
Shows strictness of the rule.

Dobson v Thames Water [2007

Where only some family members have standing, courts award damages to “landholders”, treating it as “just satisfaction” for others.
But: They still cannot sue in tort.

What is a workout to the strict rule set in Hunter v Canary Wharf

The HRA softens the Hunter rule, but only when D = public authority.

How can u use the HRA to bypass Hunter

Section 7 HRA 1998

Allows “victims” to bring claims for breaches of Article 8.

Article 8 ECHR — right to home, family life, private life

“Home” does not require legal title, only possession and attachment.

Leading case for HRA standing ?

Khatun v UK (1998)

Khatun v UK (1998)

Large-scale dust emissions from Docklands redevelopment; many occupants had no property interest.
Held:

The Hunter standing rule does not apply to Article 8. If the claimants regard the place as their home, they may sue under Article 8.

BUT interference was justified under Art 8(2) by the public interest in regeneration.

(Note: HRA damages are modest compared to tort damages.)

What types of interference are there for element two ?

Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] identifies three types of actionable interference:

1. Encroachment (e.g., tree roots).

2. Physical damage to land.

3. Interference with amenity – use and enjoyment of land.

Personal inconvenience or distress alone is not actionable unless it impacts property enjoyment.

what does enroachment entail ?

tree roots, invasive plants.

leading case for enroachment interference ?

Williams v Network Rail [2018]

Williams v Network Rail [2018]

Japanese knotweed roots encroaching = actionable nuisance.
Significance:

• Categories of nuisance are flexible.

• Protects property value and use.

leading case for physical damage interference

St Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865)

St Helens Smelting v Tipping (1865)

A huge copper smelting plant released toxic fumes.
They damaged Tipping’s trees and shrubs.

Held

The House of Lords said:

• If activity physically damages land → always a nuisance.

• Locality is irrelevant
  (Even in an industrial area, you don’t have to tolerate your property being damaged.)

Because any physical damage to land is automatically treated as unreasonable.
You don’t have to prove intensity, locality, sensitivity, balancing, etc.

What does Interference with amenity include ?

• Noise/vibration (Sturges v Bridgman)

• Smells (Bamford v Turnley)

• Disturbance (e.g., brothel: Thompson-Schwab v Costaki)

• Dust (Pwllbach Colliery)

Must affect comfort or convenience of land.

What is not protected for loss of amenity ?

• Personal injury (not a nuisance head)

• TV/wi-fi signal interference (Bridlington Relay, Hunter)

• Mere overlooking — BUT see below.

⭐Fearn v Tate (2023)— modern development

The SC held that extreme, persistent visual intrusion can be nuisance if it substantially interferes with use of property.

→ Not about “overlooking”; about being placed under constant observation.

Fearn v Tate [2023]

The Tate Modern built a public viewing platform on its top floor. Visitors could look directly into the glass-walled luxury flats next door.

Visitors didn’t just glance — they:

• took photos of the claimants inside their homes

• waved at them

• posted images online

• lined up along the platform for long periods

The claimants described it as living “in a zoo”, always watched, never private.

Claim

The residents sued the Tate for private nuisance, arguing the platform created:

• a constant visual intrusion

• a loss of privacy

• which made normal home life impossible

High Court + Court of Appeal

They rejected the claim.

Reason:

• “Overlooking” is not an actionable nuisance.

• They treated it as a privacy issue, not a property interference issue.

⭐THE SUPREME COURT SAID (the big change)

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.

Key Holding

This was not mere overlooking — it was a highly intrusive, continuous visual interference that made normal use of the claimants’ flats impossible.

So yes, it can be a nuisance.

Why?

Because:

• Nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land.

• If the interference prevents you from living normally in your home (e.g., constant observation), it affects amenity just like noise or smell.

• This was far beyond what a reasonable person can be expected to tolerate.

are the categories of loss of amenity ?

No both Tate and Williams v Network Rail showcased it.

Williams v Network Rail [2018] 

Categories are not rigid; courts must adapt to new social conditions.

Give case examples of where new categories of loss of amenity were found ?

• Williams v Network Rail – Encroaching Japanese knotweed roots.

• Colls v Home and Colonial Stores – Loss of light.

• Thompson-Schwab v Costaki – Brothel causing moral disgust.

What type of behaviour is unreasonable looking for

NOT BAD, BUT whether it was unreasonable

How do u approach Unreasonable use of land

Two approaches per Bamford v Turkey

1⃣ Physical damage → Automatically unreasonable

No balancing. Strict.

2⃣ Amenity loss → Apply the “reasonable user” test

Multiple factors balanced.

What is the reasonable user test ?

Core question:
Would an ordinary person in C’s shoes find this interference too much to reasonably tolerate?

Barr v Biffa (2012)
- Focus on impact on C, not “fault” of D

What factors are ALWAYS considered when considering unreasonable

Intensity (Duration, frequency, timing)

Character of the locality

Intensity (Duration, frequency, timing)

• Regular = more unreasonable

• Night-time = more unreasonable

Fearn v Tate (2023)
Constant observation was “intense and oppressive”, tipping the scale

what do u take into consideration for Character of the locality

The classic:
“What is a nuisance in Belgrave Square may not be a nuisance in Bermondsey.”
— Sturges v Bridgman

cases for locality ?

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

Laws v Florinplace

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

• Character comes from actual land use, not planning permission.

• A noisy track in a rural area = nuisance.

• Planning permission ≠ defence, but can change locality over time.

Laws v Florinplace

sx shop in residential area → nuisance because activity clashes with locality.

what can’t be argued/used as a defence for locality ?

“Coming to the nuisance”

Not a defence. (Sturges)
BUT:
If C themselves changed the land use (Coventry), D might have a stronger argument.

What factors are SOMETIMES considered ?

Public benefit

Sensitivity of C

Malice

What role does public benefit play with unreasonable ?

Public benefit irrelevant to liability, relevant only to remedies.

case for public benefit ?

Dennis v MoD

Dennis v MoD

Fighter jet noise = nuisance
→ BUT injunction denied (national defence)
→ Awarded £1M+ in damages instead.

how do u deal with sensitivity of C ?

When dealing with nuisance, the court checks:

Is the claimant’s harm due to their unusually sensitive use?

• If yes → no nuisance (Robinson v Kilvert).

• If no → proceed to normal nuisance analysis.

case for sensitivity of C ?

Robinson v Kilvert

Robinson v Kilvert

• Claimant stored special brown paper in a warehouse.

• The neighbour used heat machinery which raised the temperature.

• The heat damaged the claimant’s very delicate paper.

Court’s decision

➡ No nuisance, because the paper was unusually sensitive.

A normal type of paper would not have been damaged.
So the defendant’s activity wasn’t unreasonable—it only caused harm because the claimant had a special, delicate use of their land.

malice case ?

Christie v Davey

Christie v Davey

D banged trays to irritate musical neighbour → nuisance because behaviour was malicious.

What do u do for fault ?

If C seeks an injunction → NO fault required

If C seeks damages → must show foreseeability of the type of harm

Defences ?

• Prescription

• Statutory authority

• 20-year rule

• Public benefit (not a defence but affects reasonableness)

• Coming to the nuisance? (Not a defence but relevant context)

Remedies ?

Injuctions (Coventry v Lawrence, courts must consider if this is necessary) or Damages

what are the three types of damages ?

• Prescription

• Statutory authority

• 20-year rule

• Public benefit (not a defence but affects reasonableness)

• Coming to the nuisance? (Not a defence but relevant context)

what is the tort of Ryland’s ?

Blackburn J said - A person who brings onto their land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at their peril.
If it escapes, they are prima facie liable for all natural consequences.

What happened in Ryland’s

• D built a large reservoir.

• Unknown mining shafts ran into C’s land.

• When filled, the reservoir burst and flooded the mining network.

• D was not negligent (had hired competent engineers).

• But the court said:

“If you choose to keep something dangerous on your land, you do so at your own risk.”

What type of tort is rylands

Strict Liability

Which case set out the checklist for a tort under rylands

Stannard v Gore (2012)

Stannard v Gore (2012) Test ?

The six requirements turn Rylands into a very tight, almost rarely used tort.

(1) Defendant must own or control the land

2. The accumulation of a ‘exceptionally dangerous or
mischievous thing.’

3. Foreseeability of risk if the material escapes.

4. The defendant’s use of the land is extraordinary or
unusual.
5. The material escapes.
6. Material damages the claimant’s land.

What does it mean - Defendant must own or control the land

Liability only applies to occupiers — same as private nuisance.

Examples:

• A tenant storing chemicals could be liable.

• A landlord with no control usually isn’t.

what u do for - Accumulation of a dangerous thing

This is where most claims fail today.

The rule only applies if:

• D brought the thing onto the land, and

• The thing itself is dangerous, and

• The thing itself escapes.

✔ Dangerous things include:

• large volumes of water (Rylands)

• chemicals (Cambridge Water)

• gas, electricity

• explosive materials

• toxic waste

• oil tanks (industrial quantities)

case for accumulation of a dangerous thing ?

Stannard v Gore

Stannard v Gore

• D stored tyres (not dangerous by themselves).

• Tyres caught fire and the fire escaped.

• But the fire was not the thing accumulated.
  ➡ Therefore Rylands did NOT apply.

foreseeability of damage

This requirement was added by Cambridge Water (1994).

Was the general type of damage reasonably foreseeable if the thing escaped?

how do u deal with non-natural use of land

Non-natural use = extraordinary, unusual, or exceptionally dangerous use compared to normal use of the land.

NOT non-natural (ordinary uses):

• domestic water pipes (Transco)

• storing tyres for business (Stannard)

• ordinary use of land for farming, living, or small-scale commercial use

IS non-natural:

• industrial storage of hazardous chemicals (Cambridge Water)

• a huge water reservoir (Rylands)

• explosive storage

• large chemical tanks

• high-pressure gas systems

Transco emphasised that modern life involves many dangerous things.
So “non-natural use” is now interpreted very restrictively.

The Thing must escape

Without an escape → Rylands simply does not apply.

Damage to the land or property

Rylands protects only property interests, not personal injuries.

Ryland degenes ?

• Act of God
  Extreme, unforeseeable natural event (rare today).

• Act of a stranger
  A third party’s act causes the escape (e.g., vandalism).

• Statutory authority
  If Parliament authorised the activity.

• Claimant’s consent (volenti)
  C agreed to D keeping the risk.

• Claimant’s fault (contributory negligence)
  If C contributed to damage → reduction.