Sylvia runs a small market garden business from her home in the village of

Merryfield, where she keeps poultry and grows a range of vegetables, selling
her produce at farmers’ markets in the area. Angus lives in the cottage next
door to Sylvia and is frequently awakened early in the morning by the noise
from her cockerel crowing. In March each year, Sylvia receives a large order of
manure, causing a horrible smell to envelop the neighbourhood for several
days. This year Angus has his brother Bill staying with him. Bill suffers from an
auto-immune disorder which is significantly worsened by the smell,
necessitating a brief stay in hospital. When Angus complains to Sylvia, she is so
angry that she deposits a heap of manure at the edge of her garden, almost next
to Angus’s driveway. Overnight, the wind blows some of this noxious substance
onto his driveway making it impassable. Advise the parties
The question at hand aims to discuss the law of Tort of Nuisance. The issue at
hand is whether Angus (A) has a claim in private nuisance, If Bill (B) has a claim in
private nuisance and if A has a claim under Rylands v Fletcher. Nuisance in law is
an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land, or with
some right connected to it. Nuisance, in law is of three types: Statutory, Public
and Private nuisance. Each of these will be discussed separately below.
Angus’s claim under private nuisance
A’s claim will fall under private nuisance as she has indirectly suffered from S’s
actions. A’s right to use the land without any interference is breached is
nuisanced by the cockerel crowing every morning and due to the bad smell of
manure. Private nuisance aims to strike a balance between a landowner’s right to
use their property freely and their neighbour’s right to enjoy their own land
without unreasonable disturbance. This principle was clearly illustrated in
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan. Private nuisance is generally defined as a
substantial and unreasonable interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment
of their land, typically caused indirectly by the defendant’s actions. Thus, it is
evident to us that A’s claim will fall under private nuisance.
Nex, I wouldIn determininge who can sue a person underin private nuisance. We
would first have to establish if A has the right to sue under this area od tort. In
law it is stated thatLegal precedent has laid out that any person who has a
proprietary interest orand exclusive possession of the land can bring in a claim
under private of nuisance; Hunter V Canary Wharf. The facts of the case show us
that A lived next door to S, showing us that he has proprietary interest in the land.
As A has exclusive possession of the land she is able to bring in a claim under the
law of nuisance.
In order to have a successful claim we would laso need to prove that S can be
sued. There are three types of individuals who can be sued. Namely, the creator,
one who adopts the nuisance and the one who authorizes the nuisance. In this
scenario S would be considered as a creator of the nuisance as S owns the
cockerel that crows in the morning as well asand she is the one who brings the
manure in to her land; Goldman v Hargrave. Therefore, A can sue S as she is the
creator of the nuisance. (mention the natural occurences)
There are three elements that need to be fulfilled in law for A to be successful in
her claim in law. Each of these elements will be dealt with separately.
Firstly, there must be an indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of the
land or property. In this question it is evident to us that A has suffered by the loud
cockerel crowing in the morning; Christie v Davey, and she has suffered by the
bad smell from the manure; Adams v Ursell. As this question discusses about a
village environment, one could argue that these types of environments are laid
back and very quiet and hence would affect (This comes under locality) A due to
these nuisances. Thus, it could be seen that A has suffered an indirect
interference and she is not able to enjoy her property.
Secondly, we must consider the unreasonableness of the nuisance. In order to do
so we wound consider the locality, utility, sensitivity, duration and malice. Firsly, I
would discuss what locality which refers to the surrounding of the house. As
Merryfield is a village it could be considered that it is a residential area. As
emphasized by the case Sturges v Bridgeman, as the village is residential it would
be considered unreasonable for the smell and noise caused by S.
However, S would likely counter this claim by arguing that, given the village
setting, having a home garden and keeping farm animals is entirely normal. In
Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients, the court considered the nature of the
surrounding environment and found that, in an industrial area, smells and noise
were to be expected. Similarly, in a village environment, it is common for
residents to maintain gardens and keep animals such as cockerels. Therefore, S
would argue that this does not amount to an unreasonable nuisance.
When considering the utility, this refers to if the public were to benefit and if so it
is likely to be nuisance. S sells her produce to the farmers which can be in the
interest of the public. Therefore, the nuisance can be considered as reasonable;
However this does not mean that the nuisance in reasonable it will only influence
the balace in establishing if the interference is reasonable or unreasonable. Miller
v Jackson
Considering the element of sensitivity there is no abnormal sensitivity in this
instance.
Next, I question the time period of the nuisance. When considering the time
period it must occur over a long period of time. S’s cockerel crows every morning
and each year in March there is large amount of manure that’s brought to her
house. Hence, this nuisance happens over a long period of time; Harrison v
Southwalk.
Example; The next factor we will analyse is the duration of the interference.
According to the decision held in the case of Harrison v Southwalk; If an
interference occurs over a long period of time it will amount to being
unreasonable. In this case the interference caused by the cockerel crowing occurs
every morning which fulfils the requirement of duration, and the smell of the
Manure although occurring only once a year may also satisfy this requirement as
the smell envelops the whole neighborhood causing a quire significant
interference; De Keysers Royal Hotel Ltd Spicer Bros Ltd (1914)
Considering if there is malice, A has complained to S about the smell. This makes
her angry and she brings a heap of manure and deposits at the edge of her garden
and due to the wind, it has been blown to the drive way and making it
impassable. As Sylvia puts the manure on the edge of the garden with the
intention to make the condition worse, the nuisance would become unreasonable
as highlighted in Christie.
Conclusion; Thus looking at the factor above and we can see that the interference
caused by Sylvia can be considered to be unreasonable, thus fulfilling the second
requirement of public nuisance.
Thirdly, the interreference must have caused damage. For a claim in private
nuisance to succeed, the interference must cause material damage. This usually
involves discomfort or disruption to the claimant’s use and enjoyment of their
land, although it can also include physical damage to property or a reduction in
the land’s value. In this case, the frequent disturbance caused by the cockerel’s
crowing could be seen as an interference with the claimant’s use of their land. As
established in Hunter v Canary Wharf, interference with the enjoyment of land is
sufficient to ground a claim in nuisance.
Therefore, A would be able to successfully bring in a claim against S for the
nuisance caused.
As established above as nuisance is present S will try to rely on a defence to pay a
lower compensation. Sylvia would try to rely on the defence of prescription and
argue that she has been having cockerels for more than 20 years and that manure
has been brought in March for the past 20 years. In law it is stated that onceIf an
act is carried out for more than 20 years you are not able to bring in a claim in
nuisance; Sturges. In this case there is insufficient evidence to prove that these
acts have been carried out for the past 20 years. Therefore, it is likely that this
defence won’t succeed.
Further S would argue that the produce that’s yield is considered a social utility.
The courts recognise that if an activity benefits the public, it is less likely to be
treated as a nuisance, although this is not a complete defence. Instead, it may
lead the court to be more flexible when deciding on an appropriate remedy, as
seen in Adams v Ursell. Here, Sylvia was selling produce to local farmers,
providing a benefit to the community. As a result, the court may take this public
benefit into account when assessing damages and the courts would likely grant a
remedy. This is good
It is possible that the court would consider granting an injunction against S to
prevent her from continuing to keep the manure. An injunction is a remedy
granted by the courts to stop a wrongful act. However, under section 50 of the
Supreme Court Act 1981 and the principles set out in Shelfer v City of London
Electric Lighting Co, the court has the discretion to award damages instead of an
injunction if certain conditions known as the Shelfer rules are satisfied. First, the
injury to the claimant’s legal rights must be small, which in this case it is because
the main complaint relates to the crowing of the cockerel. Second, the injury must
be one that is capable of being estimated in monetary terms, and here the
interference is minor and can easily be valued. Third, it must be possible to
adequately compensate the injury through a small money payment, and given
that the nuisance is relatively minor and can be tolerated. Finally, it must be
oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction. Considering the
circumstances, a small award of damages would be a fairer and more
proportionate solution than granting an injunction. Therefore, it is likely that the
court would award damages in lieu of an injunction.
Mention the damages part as well It’s the third remedy on the note

Bills Claim under Public nuisance

In this scenario Bills claim will come under a public nuisance. His claim would nto
succeed in a private nuisance claim as he does not have any proprietary interests
and exclusive possession of the land.
Therefore, he might be able to succeed in a claim in public nuisance. Public
nuisance is defined in AG v PYA Quarries, as when an act materially affect the
reasonable comfort and convenience of her class of her majesty. Due to the
manure being present it would not only affect B, it would affect the other
neighbours as well as anyone who passes by. Thus, this shows us that this act by S
would affect a group of people.
Furthermore, by the manure being present B would suffer a special damage. This
is because due to the severe odour his auto immune disease gets worse and
needs to be admitted to the hospital. As highlighted in Wandsworth LBC v
Railtrack, if an individual suffers a special damage due to a nuisance that has
affected a class of people you can bring a successful claim in public nuisance.
Therefore, Bill’s claim under public nuisance would succeed and might be able to
claim damages from S.
Mention that private nuisance does not cover physical injury but public nuisance
does
Angus’s claim under Rylands
The law in Rylands was developed when considering nuisance in relation to land
matters. This is a strict liability offence as a defendant could be held liable even if
they are not at fault. The rule in Rylands as explained by Blackburn J, states that if
a person brings something onto their land for their own purposes and keeps it
there, knowing it could cause harm if it escapes, they are responsible for any
damage that naturally results from its escape. The person acts at their own risk
and will be held liable for any resulting harm unless they can show otherwise.
Similar to as what we have discussed above any individual who has proprietary
interests could sue and thus in this instance A could S under Rylands as she is the
owner of the land. In order for A to have successful claim in Rylands she would
have to meet several criterions which shall be discussed below.
Firstly, for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant must bring something
onto their land for their own purposes that does not naturally occur there, and
they must have recognised that there was an exceptionally high risk of danger or
mischief if it were to escape, as confirmed in Giles v Walker. In this case, Sylvia
brought manure onto her land, and she was aware that if it escaped, it could
cause damage. Therefore, the necessary elements to establish liability under this
principle are present.
Secondly, the item brought must have escaped and must have caused harm. In
this scenario the manure has escaped with the wind blowing and caused harm to
A making the driveway impassable; Read v Lyons & Co Ltd.
Thirdly, the use of land must be extraordinary or unusual for liability under
Rylands to arise. The rule is now limited to exceptional situations where the
occupier has brought a dangerous item onto their land that creates an
exceptionally high risk to neighbouring property if it escapes. This was confirmed
in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, where the court
emphasised that ordinary or everyday uses of land will not fall within the scope of
the rule. In this situation the manure that has been brought is for the natural use
of the land as it could be used as a fertilizer for her plants. Thus, the manure has
been brought for a natural use of the land. (Good)
Fourthly, it should be foreseeable that it would cause harm by the escape that
causes damage. In this scenario it is not foreseeable that by the escape would
have caused harm.
Therefore, A would not be able to bring in a claim under Rylands.
Conclusion needs to be here sumarise the case in a few sentences