Private nuisance

• Unlawful indirect interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land
• Claimant has to have a legal interest in the land - hunter v canary wharf
• Defendant must be allowing or causing the nuisance - tetley v chitty
• If an occupier is adopting the nuisance they can be sued - sedleigh v ocallaghan
• Interference must be indirect
• If physical damage is caused the interference is more likely to be unreasonable
• Interferance must be unreasonable

  • Locality: what may be a nuisance here might not be one there - sturges and bridgman
  • If nuisance causes physical damage locality is irrelevant - halsey v esso petroleum
  • Duration: the longer the nuisance the greater the in interference. Crown river v kimbolton
• • Sensitivity of the claimant: nuisance will not be found -kilvert v robinson
  • Nuisance must be foreseeable - railway network v morris
  • Malice on d’s part: will be a nuisance - silver fox farm v emmett
  • Social utility: may not prevent a nuisance from being one. Miller v jackson
• Providing social service may not be a defence - adams v ursell
• Damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable - wagon mound
• Defences

  • If nuisance continues for 20 years, right to complain will lapse
  • They have statutory authority from parliament allen v gulf oil
  • planning permission if it changes character of neighbourhood - wheeler v saunders
• Remedies:

  • Injunction stops d from causing nuisance
  • Damages