evaluation of private nuisance

• Evaluation

  Many would argue that lots of things can be considered a private nuisance and it may be too wide. This is shown in the case of Halsey V Esso (explain). This is also seen in the case of Hollywood Silver fox farms (explain). Another case is St Helen Smelting (explain). This shows how broad the criteria is to be a private nuisance however, the case of Hunter V Canary Wharf shows not all annoyances are a nuisance.(explain). This would suggest maybe private nuisance is not too broad. 
• Evaluation case

  Hunter V Canary Wharf shows not all annoyances are a nuisance. In this case claimants sought damages for private nuisance due to interference with the tv signals at their homes due to construction but the supreme court said there was no action in private nuisance for interference caused by the presence of a building. They did this to not open floodgates. This would suggest maybe private nuisance is not too broad. 
• Evaluation cases

  • Halsey V Esso where the high court held that a private nuisance had been created by the noise at night from boilers and road tankers.
  • Hollywood Silver fox farms where  the claimant was entitled to an injunction and damages for private nuisance as although it was not unreasonable for the farmer to use a shotgun on his own land, the defendant acted with malice.
• Evaluation 2

  Judges have to balance the rights of the claimant and the defendant when it comes to private nuisance cases. This can be positive as law will protect people from unreasonable neighbours as seen in Robinson V Kilvert (explain). However, the law will side with any defendant who is also unreasonable like malice as seen in Hollywood fox farm (explain)Furthermore, even when the character of the area is being considered, the judge will decide which rights are more important as seen in St Helen Smelting  (explain)
• Evaluation 2 cases

  • Robinson V Kilvert where there was no private nuisance as the claimant was deemed to be abnormally sensitive as he wanted the defendant to stop putting his heating on as it was ruining the claimants special brown art paper.
  • St Helen Smelting  where one factory was polluting more than the others. It was held that although character of the area is important, it does not prevent a successful action when damage is caused so they were held liable.
• Evaluation3

  You can still make a claim even if you move to the nuisance as seen in Sturges V Bridgeman (explain). However, judges will also use common sense when it is needed as seen in the case of Miller V Jackson (explain) The element of interest in the land can also be problematic as it excludes certain people from making a claim as they don’t own the land or have a right over it. This point shows why some judges may make wrong decisions and go against the law itself as seen in Khorasandjian V Bush (explain). However, this was overruled by Hunter V Canary
• Evaluation 3 cases

  Sturges V Bridgeman where the claimant brought an action in nuisance to obtain an injunction to prevent the continuation of noise even though she had moved next to the sweet shop.

  Miller V Jackson where the claimant tried to seek an injunction to prevent them playing cricket. Although there was a nuisance, court of appeal judges refused to grant the injunction as the cricket club provided a social utility/benefit to the community.
• Evaluation 4

  In the case of Wheeler V Saunders (explain). This is shown as businesses like nightclubs and pubs are only protected to a certain amount. However, planning permission can be of some relevance in certain areas as seen in Coventry V Lawrence where the supreme court stated there will be occasions when the terms of a planning permission may be of some relevance in a nuisance case. Furthermore, some argue there is no point in planning permission if it does not protect certain defendants from claims.
• Evaluation 4 cases

  Wheeler V Saunders there was a nuisance created by the granting of planning permission for the building of two new pig houses. It was held that planning permission does not change the character of the area but extensive planning permission might.