private nuisance

• private nuisance definition

  an unlawful, indirect interference with another person's use or enjoyment of land, or their rights over it
• c must have a proprietary interest in the land affected by the nuisance


  (hunter v Canary Wharf) - proprietary means they own the property, those renting could not claim
• d must be an occupier of the land meaning they have sufficient control 


  (tetly v chitty)
• possible scenario issues

  (sedleigh denfield v o'callaghan) - d can be liable if they adopt or continue to the nuisance

  (Leakey v national trust) - may only be actionable if d knew about it or had some duty to take precautionary steps

  (holbeck hall hotel v Scarborough bc) - took into account the resources of d
• examples of indirect interferences

  • noise and vibrations (Sturges v Bridgman)
  • smoke and fumes (St Helens smelting v tipping)
  • damage (St Helens smelting v tipping)
• c must suffer some harm or damage

  (hunter v Canary Wharf) - three categories give rise to an actionable private nuisance

  • physical damage to land
  • interference with enjoyment of land
  • encroachment onto land
• what does private nuisance not cover

  personal injury or purely aesthetic interested

  (hunter v Canary Wharf)
• unlawful means unreasonable 


  physical damage - enough to class as unreasonable
• when to consider unlawful factors

  only when determine whether an interference with c's enjoyment amounts to an unreasonable use (Halsey v Esso petroleum)
• unlawful factors


  • locality
  • the presence of malice
  • previously going about the activity is irrelevant
  • duration
  • sensitivity of the claimant
  • the effect of public policy
• locality 


  • character of the neighbourhood can determine whether it is reasonable
  • local authority planning permission can change the character of the neighbourhood (gillingham bc v medway dock) but this doesn't mean planning permission grants immunity of nuisance in an unreasonable way (wheeler v jj Saunders)
  • the nature of the business must fit the area (laws v florinplace)
• previously going about the activity is irrelevant 


  (Sturges v Bridgman)
• duration


  • the nuisance must be continuous
  • (spicer v smee)
• sensitivity of the claimant 


  (Robinson v kilvert)
• the effect of public policy/ social benefit 


  d cannot argue that a social benefit makes his use of land reasonable

  (Adams v ursell)

  however it may impact the remedy awarded to C

  (miller v Jackson)
• defences 


  prescription - a claim that D has accrued the right to act in a way that constitutes private nuisance because he has done so for so long without interruption

  statutory authority - if D's conduct was authorised by statute, it is likely to provide a defence against claims of nuisance