GROUP 4

QUESTION 9
(NUISANCE)
Omar lives in a large house on the outskirts of the town of Muar. The area has
previously been a quiet, sought-after residential area. Despite fierce resistance from
local residents, Muar County Council gave planning permission for the conversion and
use of the detached property neighbouring Omar’s house as a bail hostel, the property
having been authorised as ‘Approved Premises’ by the Minsitry of Home Affairs.

The house now accommodates around 20 persons. Some have either been released
from prison on licence, and some others are on bail awaiting trial. The hostel is run by
a civil society organisation, Kaseh Foundation. Kaseh Foundation acquired a lease on
the property from its owner, Rosman, prior to applying for the planning permission.

Since the hostel opened, there have been a number of instances of burglaries, knife
crime and anti-social behaviour in the local area. Drug dealers from the other side of
Muar have also been active in the locality for the first time.
Omar often overheard arguments and obscene language coming from the hostel as
residents interact with one another and with members of staff. Omar has also often
discovered beer cans and drug-taking equipment deposited in her garden. Omar’s
young daughter, Maya , recently picked up a hypodermic needle while playing
outside, suffering a bleeding finger as a result of the puncture wound. While Omar has
complained to Kaseh Foundation about these issues, the problems have continued
unabated.

To demonstrate his opposition to the hostel, Omar has been lighting regular bonfires
in his garden, using old car tyres. This has produced thick, acrid smoke, which has
made some of the hostel staff and residents cough and choke and has prevented
others from getting to sleep after curfew hours.

Advise Omar as to any claims or liabilities he, or his family, may have in nuisance.
 THE PARTIES
BAIL'S RESIDENTS
OMAR

MUAR COUNTY COUNCIL

MAYA

KASEH FOUNDATION
 ISSUE 1
The issue is whether Omar can sue and claim
damages under private nuisance.
 ELEMENT 1
Substantial interference

ELEMENT 2
Unreasonableness
Element 1
CASES
Goh Chat Ngee & ors v. Toh Yan & Others (Physical damage
to claimant's land)

Dato’ Dr Harnam Singh v Renal Link KL [1996] (interference

with the use, comfort and enjoyment of land)

APPLICATION
discovered beer cans and drug equipment in his garden

couldn't have the comfort and enjoyment of his land

has complained but nothing change

Element 2 CASE
Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd and
Elevenist Syndicate Ltd [1936]

Spicer v. Smee [1946]

APPLICATION
there was excessive noise due to arguments and obscene
language
Maya was hurting and bleeding from the needle she
picked in their garden
caused harm and danger on omar's land
 CONCLUSION
Omar can sue and claim damages towards Kaseh Foundation
under private nuisance
fulfilled both elements

damage can be proven (not actionable per se)

Kaseh Foundation was liable under private nuisance

 ISSUE 2
The issue is whether Omar was liable for
public nuisance.

 Element 1: There is inteference with public right

Case: City of London v Samede

The defendant set up a protest camp in the grounds of
St.Paul's Churchyard.There were large number of tents
for about 200 tents used by the protestors as overnight
accommodation and several larger tents used for other
activities such as library,first aid facility and a welfare
facility.
Court held:Public nuisance was proven and the
obstruction of public thoroughfares was substantial and
injunctive.
Element 2:There is substantial damage suffered by general public
Case:Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK
A massive explosion of petrol vapour at the Buncefield oil depot
caused widespread destruction to many residential and business
properties around the site especially in the Hemel Hempstead
area.Following the explosion,the public were obstructed in using
roads and footpath around the site because of an exclusion zone
imposed.
Court held:Public nuisance was occurred.
Element 3:Direct relationship between the damage and the act of
nuisance
Case: South West Water Authority
20 tonnes of aluminum sulphate was pumped into
wrong tank at water treatment and it caused
foul taste and change of colour in the water,
burnt mouths, hair loss, diarrhea and memory loss.
Court held: The Water Authority was found guilty of
committing public nuisance.
 Conclusion

-Omar is liable for public nuisance

-Omar fulfilled all the elements of public nuisance
-All the elements of public nuisance have been published.

 ISSUE 3
The issue is whether Muar County
Council is liable under public nuisance

ELEMENT 1: THERE IS INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC RIGHTS

CASE:
UDA Holdings Bhd v Koperasi Pasaraya (M) Bhd

APPLICATION:
Muar County Council gives approval to the conversion of
the property to a bail hostel
Failed to consider the hardship of the resident
The act materially affects the comfort of people within the
residential area
ELEMENT 2: THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE SUFFERED BY
THE GENERAL PUBLIC

CASE:
Campbell v. Paddington Corporation

APPLICATION:
The claimant and the residents are affected by the
nuisance which lead to damages such as personal injury,
property damage, economic loss, and discomfort
ELEMENT 3: A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DAMAGE AND
THE ACT OF NUISANCE

CASE:
Pacific Engineering v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill

APPLICATION:
The resident suffer damage to the act of the hostel
resident; burglaries, knife crime and anti-social
behaviour
 CONCLUSION :
Muar County Council is liable for public nuisance
Satisfied all the Public Nuisance elements
Local authority also can be sued
THANK YOU!