private nuisance

• an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land coming from neighbouring land
• claimant is the person suffering the harm, must have legal interest in land (hunter v canary wharf)
• defendant is party accused of causing nuisance (tetley v chitty)
• or knowing about a problem and failing to deal with it (sedleigh v o'callaghan)
• claimant must prove 3 elements
• 1. indirect interference with enjoyment of land
• 2. interference must be unlawful
• 3. claimant suffered damage as a result of the interference
• courts except range of indirect interferences
• such as noise or vibrations (sturges v bridgman)
• smoke and fumes (st helens smelting v tipping)
• and smells (bliss v hall)
• loss of recreational facility is not enough (hunter v canary wharf)
• interference must be unlawful requiring proof of unreasonableness
• court take into account factors such as locality (sturges)
• duration (crown river cruises)
• sensitivity of claimant (robinson)
• malice (hollywood silver fox farm)
• and social benefit (miller v jackson)
• sensitivity of c is moving towards test of foreseeability (network rail)
• interference must cause damage (st helens smelting co)
• discomfort or inconvenience sufficient
• defences include prescription (sturges)
• moving to nuisance (miller v jackson)
• statutory authority (allen v gulf oil)
• d can raise planning permission, may not be absolute defence (coventry v lawrence)
• remedies include prohibitory injunctions, damages and abatement (lemmon)