Nuisance

Nuisance

• Nuisance in law refers to an act that unlawfully interferes with

another person's use or enjoyment of land. The law of nuisance
seeks to balance competing interests between landowners and
ensure that one person’s use of their land does not
unreasonably infringe on another’s rights.

Types of Nuisance:

• Public Nuisance

• Private Nuisance
 • Public nuisance is an act that interferes with the
comfort, convenience, or rights of a group of people
or the general public.
Elements of Public Nuisance:
Public Nuisance 1. The act must affect a large number of people, not
just one person.
2. It must cause harm, inconvenience, or disrupt
public rights (e.g., blocking a public road,
pollution, or excessive noise).
3. A private individual can sue only if they suffer
special damage beyond what the general public
experiences.
 • Facts: The defendant wrongfully obstructed a public
navigable creek which obstructed the defendant from
transporting his good through the creek. This resulted in
the plaintiff having to transport his goods by land,
causing him to incur extra
Rose v Miles • Issue: Did the obstruction cause specific economic loss?
• Held: Yes, as the claimant suffered financial damage due
to increased transportation costs.
• This case demonstrates a successful public nuisance claim
where the obstruction caused specific and calculable harm
to the claimant that was not experienced by others.
 • Facts: The obstruction of a highway caused inconvenience to the
general public.

Ramsaran v Sandy • Issue: Did the obstruction cause “particular damage” to the
claimant beyond what others experienced?
(2004) • Held: No, as the damage was common to all users of the highway,
and no specific individual harm was proven.

• This case showed that for a public nuisance claim to succeed, the
claimant must show that they suffered unique or special harm
distinct from what the general public endured.
 • Facts: Dust from bauxite works damaged crops.

Chandat v • Issue: Could the claimant prove “particular damage” beyond the
harm to a class of citizens?

Reynolds • Held: No, as the dust impacted a class of citizens, and no specific

Guyana Mines individual damage was proven.

Ltd (1973)
• In public nuisance claims, the absence of particular damage to a
single individual weakens the case. This case shows the necessity
for the damage to affect a claimant uniquely to differentiate it
from harm to the general public.
 Campbell v Paddington Corporation (1911)
• Facts- A structure built by the local council blocked the plaintiff’s view,
and she sued for loss of enjoyment.
• Held- The court ruled that blocking a view is not a legal nuisance, and

Public Nuisance
to claim public nuisance, a person must suffer special damage beyond
what others experience. This reinforces that not all public
inconveniences qualify as public nuisance—the claimant must show

Additional unique harm.

Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)

Cases • Facts- Esso’s oil depot emitted smoke, acid fumes, and noise,
damaging the plaintiff’s property and disturbing local residents.
• Held- The court found Esso liable for both private nuisance (damage
to property) and public nuisance (harm to the community). Confirms
that pollution and industrial activities can be public nuisance if they
affect many people.
 Private nuisance occurs when a person’s use of their land
unreasonably interferes with another’s enjoyment or use of
their land.
Elements to Be Proved

Private 1. Continuous Interference – The interference must be

ongoing rather than a one-time occurrence.

Nuisance 2. Unreasonable Interference – The interference must be

substantial and unreasonable.
3. Damage Suffered by the Claimant – The claimant must
show physical damage to property or interference with
enjoyment (e.g., noise, smoke, smells).
 • Facts: The defendants were constructing a building nearby to the claimant’s hotel. This
involved the excavation of the foundations and pile-driving operations to be carried out as a

De Keyser’s result. The excavation work was carried on between 7:30pm and 6:40am, with pile-driving
operations being carried on mostly during the daytime. However, on one occasion the pile-

Royal Hotel v driving continued throughout the night. The claimant’s brought a claim in private nuisance
alleging that the ongoing activity prevented guests from sleeping and from guests being

Spicer Bros able to hear the speaker after dinner. The claimants sought an injunction to prevent the
work being carried out at these times.

(1914) 30 TLR • Issue: Whether the defendant’s temporary building works could constitute a nuisance.

257
Whether or not the temporary work was of a consistent enough nature to constitute a
continuous interference with the claimant’s amenities and the enjoyment of their land.

• Held: Continuous interference over time constituted private nuisance.

• This case underlines the “reasonableness” standard in private nuisance and emphasizes how
persistent interference, even in industrial settings, may be deemed unreasonable.
 • Facts: The defendant stored strips of metal foil, which were used

British Celanese v in the process of manufacturing electrical components. Some of

these strips of foil blew off the defendant’s land and on to an
A H Hunt electricity substation causing power failures.

(Capacitors) Ltd • Issue: Was the interference unreasonable and actionable?

[1969] 1 WLR 959 • Held: Yes, as the method of storage caused recurring interference.

• This case reinforces the importance of avoiding foreseeable harm.

Careless industrial practices resulting in repetitive harm can
constitute private nuisance.
 • Facts: The defendants, Kimbolton Fireworks, carried out a short firework
display that lasted for some twenty minutes or so. As a result of the fireworks
display, some burning debris landed on the claimant’s river barge which had

Crown River been moored on the river on their property and set fire to it causing it damage.
The area was rural, and the river boat was moored permanently in place. The

Cruises Ltd v claimants sued in private nuisance and the defendants alleged, firstly, that a

Kimbolton nuisance could not be constituted in law by an action lasting only twenty
minutes, and secondly that as it was a boat that was damaged and not their ‘land’

Fireworks [1996] 2 itself, this was not actionable in nuisance.

Lloyd’s Rep. • Issue: Can a short-term, inevitable event amount to nuisance?

• Held: Yes, as the interference was substantial and caused direct harm.

• This case challenges the notion that nuisance must be continuous. Even a single,
isolated incident can constitute private nuisance if it causes substantial damage.
 • Facts: C owned a house nearby D’s oil depot, D’s oil depot contained
steam boilers that emitted acid smuts that damaged C’s car and washing

Halsey v Esso
hung out to dry, Night shifts at the depot led to noise at night from the
boilers and from heavy vehicles (oil tankers) going to and leaving the

Petroleum • Issue: Was the interference unreasonable and actionable as private

nuisance?

• Held: Yes, as the interference was substantial and directly affected the
claimant’s property.

• This case shows the standard of “reasonableness” in private nuisance. It

shows that direct physical damage to property from industrial activities can
constitute private nuisance.
 Defenses to Private Nuisance
1. Prescription – If the defendant has been engaging in the activity
for 20 years without complaint, they gain a legal right to continue.
2. Statutory Authority – If the action is authorized by law, it may not
be a nuisance.
Defenses and 3. Coming to the Nuisance is No Defense – A defendant cannot argue
that the claimant moved to the nuisance.
Remedies Remedies
4. Injunction – A court order to stop the nuisance.
5. Damages – Compensation for loss suffered.
6. Abatement – Self-help remedy allowing the claimant to remove the
nuisance themselves.
 • The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies to damage caused by isolated escapes
from a defendant’s land due to non-natural use of land.
Facts of Rylands v Fletcher
The Rule of • The defendant built a reservoir on his land. Water escaped and flooded a coal
mine belonging to the claimant. The court held the defendant liable under a

Rylands v strict liability principle.

Elements to Prove Liability under Rylands v Fletcher

Fletcher (1868) 1. The Defendant Brought Something Onto His Land – The defendant must
introduce something likely to cause harm.

LR 3 HL 330 2. Escape of the Thing – The substance must escape from the defendant’s land
to another’s.
3. Non-Natural Use of Land – The use of the land must be extraordinary or
unusual.
4. Foreseeable Damage Caused – The escape must result in foreseeable harm.
 Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003)
• Facts- A local council maintained a water pipe that leaked, damaging a

Cases under
nearby gas pipeline owned by Transco. Transco sued under Rylands v
Fletcher.

Rylands v
• Held- The court ruled against Transco, stating that ordinary water
supply pipes are not a "non-natural use" of land. The Case clarified that
Rylands v Fletcher only applies in exceptional cases where the land use
Fletcher is highly unusual or dangerous.
Read v Lyons (1947)
• Facts- The plaintiff, an employee at a munitions factory, was injured by
an explosion inside the factory. She sued under Rylands v Fletcher.
• Held- The claim failed because there was no escape from the
defendant’s land—damage must affect someone outside the premises.
The case established that for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, there
must be an actual escape from the defendant’s property.
 Defenses to Rylands v Fletcher
1. Consent – If the claimant consented to the use, liability may be avoided.

Defenses and 2. Common Benefit – If the use of land benefits both parties, liability may
be limited.

Remedies under 3. Act of a Stranger – If the escape was caused by a third party’s action.
4. Statutory Authority – If the action was legally permitted.
Rylands v 5. Act of God – Unforeseeable natural events may relieve liability.

Fletcher
6. Default of the Claimant – If the claimant contributed to the damage.
Remedies under Rylands v Fletcher
7. Damages – Compensation for property damage, but not personal injury.
8. Injunction – May be granted to prevent further damage.
 • Micheal lives in a small town where the main road leading to his
business has been blocked by construction for several weeks. The town
council claims the construction is necessary for repairs, but they have
not provided any alternative routes for local traffic. While everyone in

Question the town has been inconvenienced by the blocked road, Micheal argues
that his business has suffered a significant loss in customers and income
as it relies heavily on passing traffic. He believes the council's actions
have caused him direct and substantial harm beyond what the rest of the
public is experiencing.

• Using the IRAC method, advise Micheal on whether he has grounds to

take legal action against the town council and what steps he should take.