NUISANCE MODEL ANSWER

Introduction
Nuisance in tort law occurs when someone’s actions interfere with another person’s ability to
use and enjoy their land. There are two main types: public nuisance and private
nuisance . Public nuisance affects a large number of people, such as blocking a public road
or causing pollution that impacts a community. Private nuisance, on the other hand, affects an
individual’s property rights, such as excessive noise, foul odors, or vibrations from
construction work. The law seeks to balance the rights of both the claimant, who wants to
enjoy their property without disturbance, and the defendant, who has the right to use their
land.
Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance
Public nuisance occurs when an activity interferes with the rights of the general public. For
example, in Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) , noise and dust from a quarry
were considered a public nuisance because they affected a large group of people. Unlike
private nuisance, which requires a claimant to have a legal interest in the affected land, public
nuisance claims can be brought by anyone significantly impacted or by public authorities.
Private nuisance is a more personal form of interference that directly affects an individual’s
property. In Sturges v Bridgman (1879) , the court ruled that a long-established noisy
business became a nuisance when a doctor built a consulting room next to it. Even if an
activity was previously acceptable, it can become a nuisance if it starts affecting others in an
unreasonable way.
Private Nuisance: Definition
Private nuisance occurs when someone's actions unreasonably interfere with another person’s
use or enjoyment of their land. The interference can take many forms, including noise,
smoke, odors, or vibrations. The key test is whether the interference is substantial and
unreasonable . Minor inconveniences are not enough to qualify as a nuisance. In Hunter
v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) , the court ruled that television signal interference caused by a
large building was not a nuisance because it did not directly affect the claimant’s use of the
land. The interference must be more than trivial—it must significantly disrupt the claimant’s
rights.
Who Can Sue?
Not everyone can bring a private nuisance claim. Only those with a legal interest in the
property, such as owners or tenants, have the right to sue. In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
(1997) , the court held that family members, guests, or lodgers could not sue because they
did not have a legal stake in the property. This rule ensures that nuisance claims are closely
linked to property rights rather than mere inconvenience.
Reasonable Use and Enjoyment of Property
The law considers whether the interference is reasonable. Some disturbances are expected in
certain areas—what might be a nuisance in a quiet residential neighborhood might not be
considered one in an industrial zone. In Leeman v Montague (1936) , the court found that
excessive noise from a cockerel farm in a residential area was unreasonable, while similar
noise in a rural area might have been acceptable. The court aims to balance the interests of
both parties by considering the locality and nature of the interference.
Factors Determining Reasonable Use
When assessing whether an interference qualifies as a private nuisance , courts consider
several factors to determine if the use of the property is substantial and unreasonable .
1. Damage to Property or Personal Discomfort
Physical damage is easier to prove than mere discomfort. Courts take a stricter view when
interference results in structural harm, pollution, or destruction. In St Helen’s Smelting Co
v Tipping (1865) , fumes from a factory damaged trees, and the court ruled in favor of the
claimant. When dealing with noise or odors, the claimant must prove the discomfort was
substantial and beyond normal tolerance .
2. Nature of the Locality
The reasonableness of an interference depends on the area’s character. Industrial activities
may be acceptable in an industrial zone but unreasonable in a residential area. In
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock Co Ltd (1993) , noise from a dockyard was
not a nuisance because the area had been rezoned for industrial use. Courts assess nuisance
claims within the context of local conditions .
3. Duration and Frequency
A brief disturbance may not be sufficient, but persistent or repeated interference is more
likely to be a nuisance. In De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) ,
nighttime construction noise was ruled unreasonable due to its impact on hotel guests.
Timing, recurrence, and duration are key in determining liability.
4. Utility of the Defendant’s Conduct
A socially beneficial activity does not automatically excuse nuisance. Courts balance
public interest against the harm caused. In Miller v Jackson (1977) , a cricket club’s
social value did not justify cricket balls repeatedly entering a homeowner’s garden.
5. Abnormal Sensitivity
A claimant must show that the nuisance affects an ordinary person , not just someone
unusually sensitive. In Robinson v Kilvert (1889) , heat from a factory only affected
delicate paper, so the claim failed. However, if the interference disrupts normal property use,
it may be a nuisance regardless of sensitivity.
6. Malice
Intentional interference strengthens a nuisance claim. In Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v
Emmett (1936) , a neighbor fired a shotgun to scare foxes and disrupt breeding. The court
ruled in favor of the claimant because the defendant acted out of malice .
Who Can Be Sued?
The person creating the nuisance is usually liable, but others can also be held responsible. For
example, landlords may be liable if they allow a nuisance to continue. In Matania v
National Provincial Bank (1936) , a landlord was held responsible for excessive noise
caused by contractors working on their property. Employers can also be liable for their
workers’ actions if they fail to manage them properly.
Defenses
1. Statutory Authority – If an activity is authorized by law, it may be a valid defense.
In Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981) , an oil refinery was not liable for nuisance
because Parliament had granted it permission to operate.
2. Abatement – Claimants can take reasonable action to stop the nuisance themselves,
such as trimming overhanging tree branches. However, excessive action may result in
liability for damage caused.
3. 20-Year Prescription – If a nuisance has continued for at least 20 years without
objections, the defendant may gain the right to continue it. In Sturges v Bridgman
(1879) , the court ruled that long-standing industrial noise became a nuisance only when a
doctor built a consulting room nearby.
4. Unforeseeable Act of a Stranger – If a third party causes the nuisance and the
defendant had no way of preventing it, they may not be held liable. In Sedleigh Denfield v
O’Callaghan (1940) , however, the defendant was liable because they knew about the
nuisance and failed to address it.

Ineffective Defenses
1. Coming to the Nuisance – A claimant can still sue even if they move into an area
where the nuisance already exists. In Miller v Jackson (1977) , the court rejected the
argument that the homeowner should have accepted the risk of living near a cricket ground.
2. Utility of the Activity – The fact that an activity benefits the public does not mean it
cannot be a nuisance. In Adams v Ursell (1913) , a fish and chip shop was ordered to stop
operations because the smell caused a nuisance, even though it provided a valuable service to
the community.
Remedies
1. Injunctions – Courts often grant injunctions to stop the nuisance, as seen in
Kennaway v Thompson (1981) , where motorboat racing was restricted due to excessive
noise.
2. Abatement – Claimants may take reasonable steps to stop the nuisance themselves,
like cutting overhanging tree branches.
3. Damages – Compensation may be awarded for any loss suffered. In Halsey v Esso
Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) , damages were given for property damage caused by pollution
from an oil refinery.

Public Nuisance

Public nuisance occurs when an act interferes with the rights, health, or comfort of a
significant number of people , rather than just an individual. It can lead to both civil
claims and criminal prosecution , as it impacts the general public rather than private
individuals.
For an act to be classified as a public nuisance, it must cause widespread harm or
inconvenience. In R v Rimmington (2006) , the court ruled that an act must affect a
substantial portion of the public rather than just one or two individuals. Similarly, in
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) , excessive fumes and noise from an oil refinery
affected multiple residents, making it a public nuisance.
Examples of public nuisance include obstructing roads, pollution, excessive noise, and
illegal dumping of waste . Since it affects many people, enforcement is often carried out by
public authorities , but individuals suffering special damage may also bring claims.