Private nuisance - law

Private Nuisance

an unlawful interference for a substantial length of time with a person’s right to enjoy or use his land in a reasonable way.

Hunter v Canary Wharf

To claim in nuisance, C must have a legal interest in the land

Interference

1) Physical damage

Private nuisance covers physical damage to land, to plants and crops growing in the land and probably damage to goods stored on the land.

2) Loss of amenity/enjoyment

where the claimant’s ability to use or enjoy his land is restricted by the activities of the defendant

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan

D must have created, continued or adopted the nuisance

Tetley v Chitty

A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the activities of a tenant if they authorised or approved those activities

Locality

, a wider range of activities is acceptable in, for instance, industrial zones than in residential areas:

Halsey v Esso

Noise from oil tankers coming and going day and night was a nuisance in a residential area.

St Helens Smelting v Tipping

Locality is irrelevant where D has caused physical damage

a) Intensity

Everyone is expected to put up with some interference from their neighbours at some time.

Lawton LJ in Kennaway v Thompson:

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

A one-off incident can be a nuisance where physical damage is caused.

Murdoch v Glacier Metal

The worse the interference is, the more likely it is to be a nuisance; where loss of enjoyment is concerned it will only be a nuisance if it 'materially interferes with C's ordinary existence'.

Sensitivity

using land for an extra-sensitive use will not be entitled to sue in circumstances where a reasonable use would not need protection.

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity

Where C's use of the land is extra-sensitive they can only claim in nuisance if an ordinary user of the land would be affected

McKinnon v Walker

Where an ordinary user of the land would be affected, C can recover damages for the full extent of their losses even where these result from an extra-sensitive use

Social utility of the defendant’s conduct

The usefulness to society of the defendant’s conduct has a bearing on if the claimant has to deal with it

Dennis v MoD

Social utility makes an award of damages more likely than an injunction

Malice - defendant

If a defendant deliberately does something purely to annoy the claimant, the defendant’s malice can make unlawful something which might not otherwise be a nuisance.

Christie v Davey

Activity done deliberately to disrupt and upset was a nuisance

Defences

1) Statutory authority

2) Prescription

Allen v Gulf Oil

Where an Act of Parliament authorises the activity D can rely on the defence of Statutory Authority as long as it is appropriately carried out.

Marcic v Thames Water

It is a defence to nuisance to show that Parliament has created an alternative remedy

Sturges v Bridgman

The claimant coming to the nuisance is not a defence.

Remedies

1) Injunction 2) Damages 3) Abatement

Miller v Jackson

the court must balance the interests of the parties. Here the minor inconvenience to an individual was outweighed by the benefit to the community of the cricket club, so no injunction.

3) Abatement

a self-help remedy and it means the right of a claimant to take reasonable steps to deal with any nuisance themselves.

Kennaway v Thompson

The court imposed a partial 1 injunction as the nuisance was substantial. C cannot offer to pay damages instead of an injunction.