CS - Private Nuisance

• Fearn v Tate Gallery (2023)


  A use of land which substantially interferes with the ordinary use and

  enjoyment of neighbouring land, judged by the standards of an ordinary person.
• Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)


  Claimant - owners and tenants of property in the Docklands area had a right to bring an action (even though it failed) when an office tower was built which interfered with their TV reception, but not members of their families because they did not have a legal interest in the property.
• Tetley v Chitty (1996)


  Defendant - D was a local authority who allowed go-kart racing on its land and was therefore liable for the noise and disturbance caused by the go-karts.
• Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940)


  Defendant - D knew that a 3rd party had laid a pipe on his land which was prone to blocking and creating a risk of flooding to C’s land. Even though D had not consented to this pipe being laid in the first place, D was liable when C’s land was flooded because he had allowed the danger to continue.
• Leakey v National Trust (1980)


  Defendant - The National Trust were aware that a large natural mound on their land could slip. One summer it did slip and damaged C’s cottage. D's were liable as they knew that a slippage might happen and they failed to prevent it.
• Anthony v Coal Authority (2005)


  Defendant - the Coal Authority landscaped a former coal mine and then sold the land. A fire started spontaneously from coal waste on the site, causing fumes to interfere with people living in the area. The Coal Authority were liable because they were aware of the problem when they had control of the land and failed to prevent it.
• St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping (1865)


  Interference - physical damage - damage to plants or crops from fumes
• Halsey v Esso (1961)


  Interference - physical damage - C successfully claimed against an oil company for acid smuts from the oil depot that damaged his car. Physical damage will generally be regarded as unlawful.
• Bone v Seal (1975)


  Interference - loss of amenity - damages were awarded for the effect of smells emanating from a pig farm.
• Williams v Network Rail (2018)


  Interference - loss of amenity - the Court of Appeal held that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto the Claimant’s land amounted to a loss of amenity even if there was no physical damage because it carries the risk of future physical damage to buildings and the mere presence of it affects an owner’s ability to develop their property.
• Sturges v Bridgman (1879)


  Unlawful Interference - Noise and vibrations from industrial equipment in a confectioners was a nuisance in a quiet residential area because the locality was not devoted to manufacture.
• Laws v Florinplace (1981)


  Unlawful Interference - A sex shop in a residential area was deemed to making a substantial interference for local residents, affecting the ordinary comfort of human existence.
• Robinson v Kilvert (1889)


  Unlawful Interference - Heat generated by D, making boxes in the basement, damaged delicate paper belonging to C on the ground floor. D was not liable as the damage was due to the special sensitivity of the paper.
• Network Rail v Morris (2004)


  Unlawful Interference - New railway tracks interfered with sensitive recording equipment used in C’s studio. C could not claim for damage to his business because the interference was extraordinary and unforeseeable.
• De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914)


  Unlawful Interference - An injunction was granted to prevent building work at night despite the fact that the work was only temporary. The interference was unreasonable since it interfered with C’s sleep.
• Barr v Biffa Waste (2012)


  Unlawful Interference - Storage of organic material in a landfill site was a nuisance as it led to strong garbage smells on many occasions over five years.
• Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks (1996)


  Unlawful Interference - where burning debris from D’s firework display

  landed on a nearby barge that caught fire. D was liable despite the nuisance only lasting 20 minutes because there was physical damage.
• Christie v Davey (1893)


  Unlawful Interference - C gave music lessons at home. D, her neighbour, started banging on the walls, beating trays and shouting in retaliation.

  The fact that D’s actions were motivated by malice was a factor in deciding there was a nuisance.
• Miller v Jackson (1977)


  It is no defence to a claim in nuisance to say that D is using their land

  reasonably or in a way that is beneficial to the public.

  Cricket balls regularly landed in C’s garden from the cricket ground nearby. The Court ruled that this was a nuisance and that the community use of the ground did not outweigh the private use of the garden. However, the court refused an injunction and awarded damages as an appropriate balance between the rights of the parties.