Nuisance

1.1. Introduction

Nuisance refers to an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Nuisances
can be either public or private. A public nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of
land by the public at large. A private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of
land by an individual or a group of individuals.

To establish a nuisance, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable,
that the conduct caused the plaintiff harm, and that the harm was foreseeable. The defendant's
conduct will be considered unreasonable if it is not socially acceptable or if it is not necessary to
achieve a legitimate purpose. The plaintiff's harm must be more than just a minor inconvenience. It
must be substantial and it must be caused by the defendant's conduct.

If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant has committed a nuisance, the court may award the
plaintiff damages. The court may also order the defendant to stop the nuisance or to take steps to
mitigate the harm caused by the nuisance.

Here are some examples of nuisances:

 A factory that emits noxious fumes that interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring homes.
 A bar that plays loud music late into the night that disturbs the sleep of neighboring residents.
 A landowner who allows his property to become overgrown with weeds and brush, which creates a
fire hazard.
Nuisance may take three forms:
1. Private Nuisance
2. Public Nuisance
3. Statutory Nuisance
Overview on the classifications:

Private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land by an individual or a
group of individuals. To establish a private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's
conduct was unreasonable, that the conduct caused the plaintiff harm, and that the harm was
foreseeable. The defendant's conduct will be considered unreasonable if it is not socially
acceptable or if it is not necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose. The plaintiff's harm must be
more than just a minor inconvenience. It must be substantial and it must be caused by the
defendant's conduct.

Public nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land by the public at large. To
establish a public nuisance, the plaintiff does not need to prove that they were personally harmed
by the defendant's conduct. The court will consider the impact of the defendant's conduct on the
community as a whole.
 Statutory nuisance is a nuisance that is created by conduct that is specifically prohibited by
statute. Statutory nuisances can include things like noise pollution, air pollution, and water
pollution. To establish a statutory nuisance, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the
defendant's conduct was unreasonable. The plaintiff only needs to prove that the defendant's
conduct violated the statute.

1.2. Private Nuisance

 1.2.1. Definition:

A private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land by an
individual or a group of individuals.

Nuisance is a common law tort that protects the right of landowners to use and enjoy their
property. A private nuisance occurs when someone's unreasonable conduct interferes with
another person's use and enjoyment of their property.

To establish a private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove the following:

 The defendant's conduct was unreasonable.

 The defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff harm.

 The harm was foreseeable.
The defendant's conduct will be considered unreasonable if it is not socially acceptable or if it is
not necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose. The plaintiff's harm must be more than just a minor
inconvenience. It must be substantial and it must be caused by the defendant's conduct.

 1.2.2. Interference:

Interference in private nuisance refers to the unreasonable and significant disruption of an

individual's use and enjoyment of their property. It can include disturbances such as noise, odors,
vibrations, or other conditions that go beyond what a reasonable person would tolerate. To
establish a claim, the interference must be substantial and unreasonable, the claimant must have
a legal right to the affected property, and there must be a direct causal link between the
interference and the defendant's conduct. Remedies can include injunctive relief to stop the
interference and monetary damages for any harm suffered

Bliss v Hall (1838)

In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Bliss, sued his neighbor, Mr. Hall, for damages caused by the smoke
and smell from Mr. Hall's factory. Mr. Hall argued that he had been operating the factory for many
years before Mr. Bliss moved in, and that it was therefore unreasonable for Mr. Bliss to expect to
be able to enjoy his property without being affected by the factory.
 The court held that Mr. Bliss was entitled to damages. The court found that the smoke and smell
from the factory were a nuisance, even though the factory had been operating for many years. The
court reasoned that it was unreasonable to expect Mr. Bliss to have to put up with the smoke and
smell from the factory, simply because Mr. Hall had been operating the factory for a long time.

The decision in Bliss v Hall established the principle that a nuisance can be created by an activity
that has been going on for a long time. This principle is still applied today in cases of nuisance.

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

In this case, the plaintiff, Dr. Sturges, sued his neighbor, Mr. Bridgman, for damages caused by
the noise from Mr. Bridgman's confectionery business. Dr. Sturges had recently built a consulting
room at the end of his garden, and the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business was making it difficult
for him to see patients.

Mr. Bridgman argued that he had been operating his business for many years without any
complaints, and that Dr. Sturges had "come to the nuisance" by building his consulting room next
door. However, the court held that the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business was a nuisance, even
though it had been going on for many years. The court reasoned that it was unreasonable to
expect Dr. Sturges to have to put up with the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business, simply because
Mr. Bridgman had been operating the business for a long time.

key takeaways from above cases :

 A nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land.

 The fact that an activity has been going on for a long time is not a defense to a nuisance claim.
 The court will consider a number of factors in determining whether an interference is
unreasonable, including the nature of the interference, the proximity of the parties, and the
duration of the interference.

 1.2.3. A balancing act between competing interests:

Private nuisance involves the delicate task of balancing the competing interests of individuals in
order to determine the legality and extent of interference with the use and enjoyment of property.

In private nuisance cases, there is often a clash between the rights and interests of the claimant,
who seeks to protect their enjoyment of their property, and the defendant, who may have
legitimate activities or uses of their own property that inadvertently cause interference.

The concept of balancing competing interests recognizes that society must strike a fair balance
between allowing individuals to use and enjoy their property as they see fit, while also considering
the rights of others to a peaceful and undisturbed enjoyment of their own property.

The courts play a crucial role in this balancing act. They consider various factors to determine
whether the interference is reasonable or not, such as the nature and severity of the interference,
the location and character of the area, the sensitivity of the claimant, and the utility or social value
of the defendant's activity.
 For instance, if a factory operates in an industrial zone, the courts may be more inclined to tolerate
certain levels of noise and emissions, recognizing the economic importance of the industry. On the
other hand, if a similar factory operates in a residential area, the courts may be more likely to find
the interference unreasonable and grant relief to the affected property owners.

Smith v Giddy (1904):

 The plaintiff, Mr. Smith, was a nurseryman who owned an orchard.

 The defendant, Mr. Giddy, owned land next to Mr. Smith's orchard.
 Mr. Giddy's trees overhung Mr. Smith's orchard and interfered with the growth of Mr. Smith's fruit
trees.
 Mr. Smith sued Mr. Giddy for damages.
 The court found in favor of Mr. Smith and awarded him damages.
 The court held that Mr. Giddy was liable for the damage to Mr. Smith's fruit trees because Mr.
Giddy had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent his trees from interfering with Mr. Smith's use
and enjoyment of his property.
 The court also held that the fact that Mr. Giddy's trees had been growing for many years was not a
defense to Mr. Smith's claim.

The decision in Smith v Giddy established the principle that a landowner has a duty to take
reasonable care to prevent their trees from interfering with their neighbor's use and enjoyment of
their property.

 1.2.4. Who can sue ?

In private nuisance cases, determining who has the legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the
alleged wrongdoer is an important aspect.In general, the person who has a legal interest in the
affected property is typically the one who can sue for private nuisance. This includes property
owners, tenants, or anyone else who has a legal right to possess or use the property.Property
owners have the clearest standing to sue for private nuisance because they have a direct
ownership interest in the property.

They can bring a lawsuit to protect their rights to use and enjoy the property without unreasonable
interference.Tenants, on the other hand, may also have the right to sue for private nuisance if they
have exclusive possession and control of the property, as granted by the terms of their lease
agreement.

However, the specific rights of tenants to sue for private nuisance may vary depending on the
jurisdiction and the terms of the lease agreement.In some cases, even individuals who do not
have a legal interest in the property may have standing to sue if they can demonstrate a particular
type of harm or interference caused by the alleged nuisance. For example, neighboring property
owners who suffer substantial harm or interference due to the defendant's activities may be able to
bring a lawsuit.It is worth noting that the specific rules regarding who can sue for private nuisance
may vary across jurisdictions. Different legal systems have their own criteria and requirements for
establishing legal standing in private nuisance cases.
 Malone v Laskey (1907):

 The plaintiff, Mrs. Malone, was injured when a cistern fell on her head while she was using the
lavatory in her home.
 The cistern had been dislodged by vibrations caused by the defendant's electricity generator,
which was located on the adjoining property.
 Mrs. Malone sued the defendant in nuisance.
 The court held that Mrs. Malone could not recover damages because she did not have a
proprietary interest in the land.
 The court held that a licensee, such as Mrs. Malone, does not have the same rights as a tenant or
owner of land.
 The court also held that the defendant's electricity generator was not a nuisance because it was
not unreasonable in the circumstances.

The decision in Malone v Laskey established the principle that a licensee does not have the same
rights as a tenant or owner of land in relation to nuisance.

 1.2.5. Who can be sued ?

In private nuisance cases, determining who can be held legally responsible for the interference
and be sued is a crucial aspect.The party who can be sued for private nuisance is generally the
one responsible for causing or allowing the interference to occur. This can include individuals,
businesses, organizations, or even public entities that engage in activities or maintain conditions
that unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of another person's property.

The key factor in determining who can be sued for private nuisance is the extent of control or
responsibility that the party has over the interfering activity or condition. The party must have
either caused the interference directly or indirectly contributed to it through their actions or
omissions.

For example, if a factory emits excessive noise or noxious odors that disturb the neighboring
properties, the owner or operator of the factory may be sued for private nuisance. Similarly, if a
construction company conducts activities that result in significant vibrations that damage nearby
buildings, the company may be held liable for private nuisance.

It is important to note that in some cases, multiple parties may be responsible for the interference
and can be sued jointly or individually. For instance, if a landlord fails to address a persistent noise
issue caused by a noisy tenant, both the landlord and the tenant may be sued for private
nuisance.

Hussain v Lancaster City Council (2000):

 The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hussain, owned a shop and residential property on a housing estate
owned by the defendant, Lancaster City Council.
 

 The plaintiffs suffered severe harassment, including racial harassment, from tenants and their
families on the housing estate.
 The plaintiffs sued the council for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment.
 The court held that the council was liable for the harassment because it had a duty to take
reasonable steps to protect its tenants from harm.
 The court also held that the council's failure to take action was unreasonable because it had the
power to evict the perpetrators of the harassment.

The decision in Hussain v Lancaster City Council established the principle that a landlord has a
duty to take reasonable steps to protect its tenants from harm.

 1.2.6. Essential elements of private nuisance

a. An Unlawful, in the Sense of Unreasonable, Use of Land:

The first essential element of private nuisance is the existence of an unlawful use of land. This
refers to the activity or condition on a person's property that unreasonably interferes with the use
and enjoyment of another person's land. The key aspect here is the requirement of
unreasonableness. The interference must go beyond what a reasonable person would tolerate
under the circumstances. This element focuses on evaluating the nature and severity of the
interference in relation to societal norms and expectations.

Baxter v Camden London Borough Council 1999 case:

 In 1975, the Camden London Borough Council converted a Victorian terraced house into three
one-bedroom flats.
 The plaintiff, Mrs. Baxter, rented the first floor flat.
 The noise from the adjoining flats made it difficult for Mrs. Baxter to sleep and to relax in her flat.
 Mrs. Baxter complained to the council about the noise, but the council refused to take any action.
 Mrs. Baxter sued the council for nuisance.
 The court found that the council had been negligent in failing to take steps to reduce the noise
from the adjoining flats.
 The court awarded Mrs. Baxter damages for the harm she had suffered.

The Baxter case is significant because it established that landlords can be liable for nuisance if
they fail to take steps to reduce noise from adjoining flats. The case also highlights the importance
of landlords taking steps to ensure that their tenants have a quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their
rented property.
 b. Indirect Interference:

The second essential element of private nuisance is the requirement of indirect interference.
Unlike other forms of tort, such as trespass, private nuisance does not involve direct physical
invasion of land. Instead, it deals with the indirect and non-trespassory interference with the use
and enjoyment of land. This can include disturbances like noise, odors, vibrations, pollution, or
other similar conditions that affect the neighboring property. The interference may travel through
the air, water, or even underground, affecting the affected property.

c. Use and Enjoyment of Land:

The third essential element of private nuisance pertains to the interference with the use and
enjoyment of land. Private nuisance protects the right of individuals to use and enjoy their property
without unreasonable interference. This includes the peaceful enjoyment of land, the ability to
carry out activities or operations on the property, and the overall quality of life associated with the
property. The interference must substantially and unreasonably disrupt these rights, affecting the
individual's ability to use and enjoy their land as they would normally expect

Chastey v Ackland 1895 case:

 The plaintiffs owned two adjoining houses in a terrace.

 The defendant owned the house next door.
 The defendant raised the height of his wall by 16 feet, which blocked the light and air from
reaching the plaintiffs' houses.
 The plaintiffs sued the defendant for nuisance.
 The court found that the defendant's actions had caused a nuisance to the plaintiffs.
 The court ordered the defendant to lower the height of his wall.

The Chastey case is significant because it established that a person can be liable for nuisance if
their actions unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of another person's property. The
case also highlights the importance of taking steps to avoid causing a nuisance to your neighbors.

Dalton v Angus 1881 case:

 The case concerned a dispute between two neighbors over the right to lateral support.
 The plaintiff, Mr. Dalton, owned a house that was built on the side of a hill.
 The defendant, Mr. Angus, owned a house that was built below Mr. Dalton's house.
 Mr. Angus excavated his land, which caused Mr. Dalton's house to collapse.
 Mr. Dalton sued Mr. Angus for damages.
 The court found in favor of Mr. Dalton and awarded him damages.
 The Dalton v Angus case established the principle that a landowner has a right to lateral support
from adjoining land. This means that a landowner cannot excavate their land in a way that causes
damage to adjoining land.

The case is also significant because it established the doctrine of lost modern grant. This doctrine
allows a landowner to acquire a right of lateral support from adjoining land, even if there is no
written record of the grant

 1.2.7. Defences of Private Nuisance:

In private nuisance cases, defendants have the opportunity to raise various defenses to counter
the allegations of unreasonable interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of their
property. These defenses provide arguments and justifications for why the defendant should not
be held liable for the alleged nuisance. Here are some common defenses in private nuisance
cases:

1. Prescription:

The defense of prescription, also known as "acquiescence" or "lost grant," asserts that the
defendant's use of the property that allegedly causes the nuisance has been ongoing for a
significant period of time without objection from the claimant. This defense relies on the principle
that a longstanding use, without interference, can create a legal right or permission to continue
such use, even if it would otherwise be considered a nuisance. The specific requirements for
successfully invoking the defense of prescription can vary by jurisdiction.

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

In this case, the plaintiff, Dr. Sturges, sued his neighbor, Mr. Bridgman, for damages caused by
the noise from Mr. Bridgman's confectionery business. Dr. Sturges had recently built a consulting
room at the end of his garden, and the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business was making it difficult
for him to see patients.

Mr. Bridgman argued that he had been operating his business for many years without any
complaints, and that Dr. Sturges had "come to the nuisance" by building his consulting room next
door. However, the court held that the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business was a nuisance, even
though it had been going on for many years. The court reasoned that it was unreasonable to
expect Dr. Sturges to have to put up with the noise from Mr. Bridgman's business, simply because
Mr. Bridgman had been operating the business for a long time.

key takeaways from above cases :

 A nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land.

 The fact that an activity has been going on for a long time is not a defense to a nuisance claim.
 The court will consider a number of factors in determining whether an interference is
unreasonable, including the nature of the interference, the proximity of the parties, and the
duration of the interference.

2. Statutory Authority:

The defense of statutory authority arises when the defendant can demonstrate that their actions or
the conditions on their property are expressly permitted or authorized by relevant laws or
regulations. If the defendant can establish that their activities comply with applicable statutes,
regulations, or permits, they may argue that they should not be held liable for the alleged
nuisance. However, it is important to note that the availability and scope of this defense can vary
depending on the specific laws and regulations of the jurisdiction.

Metropolitan Asylum District Hospital v Hill 1881 case:

 The Metropolitan Asylum District was a local authority in London that was responsible for the care
of the poor.
 In 1875, the Metropolitan Asylum District opened a smallpox hospital in Hampstead, London.
 The hospital was located in a residential area, and the residents of the area complained about the
noise and smell from the hospital.
 The residents sued the Metropolitan Asylum District for nuisance.
 The court found in favor of the residents and ordered the Metropolitan Asylum District to close the
hospital.

The Metropolitan Asylum District Hospital v Hill case is a landmark case in the law of nuisance.
The case established the principle that a public authority can be liable for nuisance if its activities
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of private property.

The case is also significant because it established the principle that the gravity of the nuisance is a
relevant factor in determining whether the nuisance is actionable. In this case, the court found that
the noise and smell from the smallpox hospital were so severe that they constituted an actionable
nuisance.

3. Coming to the Nuisance:

The defense of "coming to the nuisance" asserts that the claimant should not be entitled to relief
because they moved or started using their property with knowledge or awareness of the existing
nuisance. The defense argues that the claimant willingly accepted the risk of the interference
when they chose to reside or conduct activities in an area known for the particular nuisance.
 The defense seeks to shift the burden of responsibility to the claimant for their decision to reside or
establish activities in proximity to the alleged nuisance.

Bliss v Hall 1838 case:

 The case concerned a dispute between two neighbors over the smell and smoke from a factory.
 The plaintiff, Mr. Bliss, owned a house that was located near a factory owned by the defendant,
Mr. Hall.
 The factory emitted a strong smell and smoke, which made it difficult for Mr. Bliss to enjoy his
home.
 Mr. Bliss sued Mr. Hall for nuisance.
 The court found in favor of Mr. Bliss and ordered Mr. Hall to stop the factory from emitting the
smell and smoke.

The Bliss v Hall case is significant because it established the principle that a landowner has a right
to the enjoyment of their property. This means that a landowner cannot use their land in a way that
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of their neighbor's property.

The case is also significant because it established the principle that the fact that a nuisance has
been going on for a long time does not make it lawful. In other words, a landowner cannot
continue to create a nuisance simply because they have been doing it for a long time.

4. Social Utility:

The defense of social utility recognizes that certain activities or conditions that may cause
interference are beneficial to society as a whole. The defense argues that the defendant's actions
or operations serve a useful purpose or contribute to the public welfare, outweighing any
inconvenience or harm caused to the claimant. The court will evaluate the overall benefit to society
against the extent of the interference suffered by the claimant in determining the validity of this
defense.

Adams v Ursell:

 The case concerned a claim for nuisance brought by a Mr Adams against his neighbour, Mr Ursell,
who ran a fish and chip shop.
 Mr Adams complained about the smell from the chip shop, which he said was making his life a
misery.
 Mr Ursell argued that he was entitled to run his business and that the smell was not unreasonable.
 The court found in favour of Mr Adams, holding that the smell from the chip shop was a nuisance.
 The court said that the smell was "continuous and persistent" and that it was "of such a character
as to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence".
 The case established that smells can be a nuisance, even if they are not particularly strong.
 The case also established that the fact that a business is being run does not mean that it is
immune from liability for nuisance.

5. Act of Others:

The defense of act of others asserts that the defendant is not responsible for the alleged nuisance
because the interference was caused by the actions or omissions of a third party for which the
defendant has no control or responsibility. The defendant must demonstrate that they took
reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the interference, but the actions of the third party were
beyond their control. This defense acknowledges that the defendant cannot be held liable for a
nuisance caused by someone else's conduct.

Thorpe v Brumfitt (1873):

 The case concerned a right of way over a passage.

 The plaintiff, Mr Thorpe, had a right of way over a passage that ran through the defendant's land.
 The defendants, Mr Brumfitt and his tenants, allowed carts and wagons to remain stationary in the
passage while loading and unloading.
 This obstructed the plaintiff's access to his yard.
 The plaintiff sued for an injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing his right of way.
 The court granted the injunction, holding that the defendants were not entitled to obstruct the
plaintiff's right of way.
 The court said that the defendants' use of the passage was not necessary for their business and
that it was unreasonable to obstruct the plaintiff's right of way.
 The case established that the right of way must be enjoyed without unreasonable obstruction.
 The case also established that the necessity of the business of the person obstructing the right of
way is not a defence.

It is important to note that the availability and success of these defenses can vary depending on
the specific facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction. Consultation with legal professionals
and reference to applicable laws are essential to fully understand and apply these defenses in
private nuisance cases.
  1.2.8. Remedies of Private Nuisance:

1. Injunction:

One of the primary remedies available in private nuisance cases is an injunction. An injunction is a
court order that requires the defendant to cease or refrain from the activity or condition causing the
interference. It is a preventive measure aimed at stopping the ongoing or future interference. The
court may grant a temporary or permanent injunction, depending on the circumstances. A
temporary injunction is typically issued during the course of the legal proceedings until a final
decision is reached, while a permanent injunction may be granted after a trial or hearing.

Miller v Jackson case:

 The case was about whether a cricket club could be held liable for nuisance when cricket balls
were hit over the boundary and onto the property of their neighbours.
 The Court of Appeal held that the club was liable in negligence and nuisance.
 The court found that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from
the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening.
 The court also found that the repeated interference with the plaintiffs' property was also an
actionable nuisance.
 The court rejected the defence of "coming to the nuisance".
 The court awarded the plaintiffs damages.

The case is significant because it established that the defence of "coming to the nuisance" is not
available in all cases. The court held that the defence would not be available where the nuisance
is unreasonable and the plaintiff has not had a realistic opportunity to avoid it.

2. Damages:

Damages are another common remedy in private nuisance cases. Damages are monetary
compensation awarded to the claimant to compensate for the harm or loss suffered as a result of
the interference. The damages may include both economic damages (such as loss of property
value, loss of business income, or cost of repairs) and non-economic damages (such as emotional
distress or loss of enjoyment of property). The amount of damages awarded is typically based on
the actual harm suffered by the claimant and may be calculated by the court or determined
through negotiation or settlement.
 Rylands v Fletcher- 1868:

 The case involved a dispute between two landowners.

 The defendant, Rylands, had a reservoir built on his land.
 The reservoir was built on land that had previously been used for mining.
 The plaintiff, Fletcher, owned a mine on the adjoining land.
 The reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine.
 Fletcher sued Rylands for damages.
 The trial court found in favor of Fletcher.
 The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision.
 The House of Lords also upheld the trial court's decision.

The House of Lords held that Rylands was liable for the damage caused by the flood.

The House of Lords stated that the rule of strict liability was necessary to protect landowners from
the dangers posed by the storage of dangerous substances on neighboring land.

3. Abatement:

Abatement is a remedy that involves taking physical action to eliminate or reduce the interference
caused by the defendant. It typically involves the claimant, with the court's approval, taking steps
to mitigate or remove the source of the nuisance. The costs incurred in abating the nuisance may
be borne by the defendant or shared between the parties, depending on the specific
circumstances. Abatement is less common than injunctions or damages and is typically
considered when other remedies are inadequate or impractical.

It is important to note that the availability and appropriateness of these remedies can vary
depending on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case. In some cases, multiple remedies
may be available, and the court will consider the equitable principles and the particular
circumstances to determine the appropriate relief.

1.3. Public Nuisence

1.3.1 Definition of Public Nuisance:

Public nuisance is a legal concept in tort law that involves the unreasonable interference with the
rights and interests of the general public in a particular locality. Unlike private nuisance, which
primarily affects individual property rights, public nuisance affects the public as a whole or a
significant segment of the public.
Public nuisance typically involves activities or conditions that have a broader impact on the health,
safety, comfort, or general welfare of the public. Examples can include pollution, excessive noise,
obstruction of public rights of way, offensive odors, or other similar disturbances that affect a
community or neighborhood.

1.3.2. Elements of Tort in Public Nuisance:

To establish a claim of public nuisance, certain elements must generally be satisfied:

a) Interference: There must be an interference that affects the rights and interests of the public or
a significant portion of the public. This interference may involve actions, conditions, or conduct that
is unlawful or unreasonably interferes with the public's use and enjoyment of a public space or
common resource.

b) Unreasonableness: The interference must be unreasonable. It must go beyond what a

reasonable person would tolerate in the given circumstances. The courts consider various factors,
such as the nature and severity of the interference, the social utility of the defendant's activity, and
the impact on public health and welfare.

c) Causation: The interference must be directly caused or substantially contributed to by the

defendant's actions or omissions. The defendant's conduct must be a significant factor in creating
or perpetuating the public nuisance.

Benjamin v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400.

 The plaintiff claimed that odors from the defendant's cattle yard constituted a private nuisance.
 The defendant argued that the plaintiff had "come to the nuisance" by moving in near the cattle
yard.
 The court rejected the defense of "coming to the nuisance" and held that the odors amounted
to a private nuisance.
 The court emphasized the importance of reasonableness and substantial interference in
determining liability.
 The defendant was found liable for the nuisance, and an injunction was issued to prevent
further interference.

1.3.3. Remedies of Public Nuisance:

The remedies available for public nuisance aim to abate the interference and protect the public's
rights and interests. These remedies can include:
 a) Injunction: The court may issue an injunction, either temporary or permanent, to prohibit or
restrain the defendant from engaging in the activity or maintaining the condition that constitutes
the public nuisance. The injunction is aimed at preventing or ceasing the interference.

b) Damages: In some cases, monetary damages may be available to compensate the public or
affected individuals for any harm suffered as a result of the public nuisance. Damages may be
awarded for economic losses, medical expenses, property damage, or other quantifiable harm
caused by the interference.

c) Public Action: Public authorities, such as government agencies or local municipalities, may also
take action to abate the public nuisance. This can involve enforcing regulations, imposing fines or
penalties, or initiating legal proceedings on behalf of the public.

Noble v Harrison

It was a 1983 court case in the United Kingdom. The case concerned the issue of whether an
employer could dismiss an employee for refusing to work on a Sunday.

The facts of the case were as follows:

 Mr Noble was a lorry driver who worked for Mr Harrison.

 Mr Harrison's company had a policy of requiring its drivers to work on Sundays.
 Mr Noble refused to work on Sundays on religious grounds.
 Mr Harrison dismissed Mr Noble.

Mr Noble brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found in Mr
Noble's favour. The EAT held that Mr Harrison's dismissal of Mr Noble was unfair because it was
based on his religious beliefs.

The EAT's decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that an employer
could not dismiss an employee for refusing to work on a Sunday if the employee's refusal was
based on their religious beliefs.

It is important to note that the specific elements and remedies associated with public nuisance
may vary across jurisdictions. Different legal systems may have variations in their definitions,
requirements, and available remedies for public nuisance.

 1.4 Satutory Nuisance

1. Definition:

Statutory nuisance is a legal concept that pertains to certain specific types of nuisances that are
defined and regulated by statutes or laws. These statutes typically outline particular activities,
conditions, or sources of interference that, if they cause substantial harm or interference, are
considered statutory nuisances.

Statutory nuisances are often broader in scope than common law private nuisances and
encompass a range of issues such as noise, vibrations, odors, smoke, dust, light pollution, and
more. The specific activities or conditions that qualify as statutory nuisances may vary across
jurisdictions, as they are defined by local laws.

2. What Action Can Be Taken:

When a statutory nuisance is identified, specific actions can be taken to address and mitigate the
interference. These actions can include:

a) Notice and Abatement: The relevant authorities, such as local councils or environmental health
departments, may issue a notice to the responsible party, informing them of the statutory nuisance
and requesting them to abate or remedy the issue. The notice usually specifies a timeframe within
which the nuisance must be addressed.

b) Enforcement and Penalties: If the responsible party fails to take action to abate the nuisance
within the specified timeframe, the authorities may initiate enforcement proceedings. This can
involve issuing fines, penalties, or taking legal action to compel compliance with the law.

c) Injunctions: In some cases, affected individuals or the authorities may seek injunctions from the
court to restrain or prohibit the continuation of the statutory nuisance. This legal remedy can
compel the responsible party to stop the offending activity or condition.

d) Criminal Prosecution: In severe cases or persistent non-compliance, criminal prosecution may

be pursued, resulting in potential convictions, fines, or other penalties for the responsible party.

 1.5. Nuisance in relation to Negligence:

Nuisance in relation to negligence involves the intersection of two legal concepts: nuisance, which
deals with unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property, and negligence,
which pertains to a party's failure to exercise reasonable care resulting in harm to others. As a tort
law expert, I can provide an overview of how nuisance and negligence can be interconnected.

In certain cases, a party's negligent conduct can give rise to a nuisance claim. Here are some key
points to consider:
 1.Creation or Maintenance of a Nuisance: Negligent actions or omissions by a party may result in
the creation or perpetuation of a nuisance. For example, if a property owner fails to maintain their
premises, leading to water accumulation that causes flooding and interferes with neighboring
properties, they may be held liable for both negligence and nuisance.

2.Standard of Care: In nuisance cases related to negligence, the focus is on the standard of care
owed by the defendant. The defendant may have a duty to act reasonably and take necessary
precautions to prevent the creation or continuation of a nuisance. Failure to meet this standard of
care may result in liability for both negligence and nuisance.

3.Balancing Test: Courts often consider a balancing test to determine liability in nuisance cases
involving negligence. They assess the defendant's actions or omissions against the degree of
harm caused and the reasonableness of the interference. This analysis takes into account factors
such as the foreseeability of harm, the feasibility of taking preventive measures, and the social
utility of the defendant's conduct.

4.Causation: To establish liability, the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant's negligent
actions or omissions were a substantial factor in causing the nuisance. There must be a direct link
between the defendant's conduct and the interference suffered by the claimant.

5.Remedies: The available remedies for nuisance in relation to negligence can include both
injunctive relief and monetary damages. Injunctive relief may be sought to prevent the continuation
of the nuisance, while damages may be awarded to compensate for harm suffered as a result of
the interference.

Goldman v. Hargrave:

 A tree on the defendant's land was struck by lightning and caught fire.
 The defendant contacted a tree feller to cut down the tree, but the tree feller left the wood
smouldering.
 The following day, the weather became hot and the fire reignited, spreading to neighboring
property.
 The plaintiffs sued the defendant for negligence, arguing that he had a duty to take reasonable
steps to prevent the spread of the fire.
 The defendant argued that he was not liable because the fire was an act of God.
 The court held that the defendant was liable, finding that he had a duty to take reasonable steps to
prevent the spread of the fire, even though it was an act of God.
 The court found that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of
the fire because he had not doused the smouldering wood with water.
 The court's decision in Goldman v. Hargrave established the principle that an occupier of land has
a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of a fire, even if the fire is an act of God.
 Leakey v National Trust:

 The plaintiffs in the case were Mrs Leaky and her neighbours.
 Mrs Leaky's house was at the foot of a large mound owned by the National Trust.
 In 1976, Mrs Leaky noticed a crack in the mound. She alerted the National Trust to the danger, but
they did nothing to prevent it.
 In 1977, a large fall of soil and debris from the mound damaged Mrs Leaky's house and the
houses of her neighbours.
 The plaintiffs sued the National Trust for damages.
 The National Trust argued that they were not liable because the damage was caused by natural
processes and they had not done anything to contribute to it.
 The Court of Appeal held that the National Trust was liable because they were aware of the risk of
damage and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
 The Court of Appeal's decision was based on the principle that landowners have a duty to take
reasonable steps to prevent damage caused by natural hazards on their land.
 The decision in Leakey v National Trust has been influential in subsequent cases involving natural
hazards and nuisance.

1.6. Conclusion:

In conclusion, the concept of nuisance holds a vital place within the realm of tort law, serving as a
crucial mechanism to protect individuals and communities from unreasonable interferences that
disrupt their use and enjoyment of property. From the buzzing noise of construction sites to the
foul odors emanating from industrial facilities, nuisance cases encompass a wide range of issues
that directly impact people's lives.

Throughout history, courts have grappled with the delicate task of balancing competing interests,
carefully weighing the rights of individuals to use and enjoy their property against the broader
concerns of social utility and public welfare. This balancing act requires a nuanced approach,
considering factors such as reasonableness, substantial interference, and the impact on both
private and public spheres.

Nuisance law not only addresses disputes between neighbors or private individuals but also
extends its reach to encompass the broader well-being of society. It recognizes that our
communities thrive when individuals can live and work in peace, free from excessive disruptions
that compromise their quality of life.

The evolution of nuisance law has showcased its adaptability to the changing societal landscape.
It has integrated environmental considerations, noise pollution regulations, and other emerging
concerns into its framework, reflecting the dynamic nature of our world and the need for ongoing
legal responses