LAW OF TORT

Nuisance
• Can be three categories
• Public nuisance
• Private nuisance
• Statutory nuisance
Private Nuisance
• Deals with disputes between neighbouring land owners
• Rights of one person to use his land how he pleases and
rights of his neighbours not to be affected.
• It is the unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment
of land or some right over or in connection to it.
• It is not actionable per se
• The claimant in an action for nuisance must have an interest
in the land which is affected in order to be able to sue Malone
v Laskey (1907) 2 KB 141
• Interest in land include ownership, leasee, or statutory right
of occupancy. A person having no legal interest a guest,
lodger or member of the owners family cannot sue in
nuisance. Malone v Lasky
• An owner not in possession at the relevant time but only
holding a reversionary interest cannot sue for private nuisance
.
• A landlord cannot maintain an action in nuisance unless he can
show that the nuisance will cause permanent damage to the
property. Coooper v Crabtree (1882) 20 Ch.D 582, Colwell v St
Pancras Borough Council (1904) CH 707

• A landlord who has leased his premises is also not liable in

nuisance except if the lease was for a purpose that constitutes
a nuisance. Tetley v Chitty (1986) 1 ALL ER 663 or the
nuisance existed prior to the lease and the landlord knew or
ought to have known Brew Bros Ltd v Snax (Ross) Ltd (1970) 1
QB 612 or the landlord has reserved the right to enter and
repair Wringe v Cohen (1940) 1 KB 229
• The creator of a nuisance by misfeasance not non misfeasance
may be sued even if he no longer occupies the land the land.
Thomas v Gibson (1841) 7 M&W 456

• An occupier is liable for nuisances he or his employees create.

• He is liable for any natural conditions of the land if he knows the

risk and fails to take appropriate action to abate the nuisance.
Goldman v Hargrave (1976) 1 AC 645 Smith v Little woods
Organisation Ltd (1987) AC 241 Lippiat v South Gloucestershire
Council (1999) 4 ALL ER 149

• Landlords may also be liable for the nuisance of their independent

contractors if the activity he has contracted out by its nature holds
a risk of that particular nuisance. Bower v Peate (1876) 1 QB 321
• a defendant is guilty of private nuisance if he does an
unreasonable act which either indirectly causes physical/material
injury to land or substantially interferes with anthers use or
enjoyment of his land or of an interest in land or both.

• Primary consideration in private nuisance therefore is

unreasonableness: was the defendants activity reasonable
according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society is it
unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs enjoyment of his land
or is the defendant engaged in reasonable use of his land.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O Callaghan (1940) 1 KB 229

• Per Baron Bramwell in Bamford v Turnley (1862) 2 B & S 66

• ‘those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and
occupation of land and houses may be done if done reasonably
without risking an action in nuisance’
• in order to succeed in nuisance there must be proof of
damage. It may be material injury to property or personal
discomfort or inconvenience.

• If an interference causes material damage to the claimants land

the defendant is generally liable St Helens Smelting Co v
Tipping (1865) 11 HL Cas 642

• If an interference causes substantial or sensible personal

discomfort, the court will apply a reasonableness test to
determine if it amounts to nuisance
• In determining reasonableness, the courts will consider:

• a. Locality: is the activity taking place in an area designated for

it. Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956) 1 ALL ER 652 carrying
out a prostitution business on a nice residential street was held
to be unreasonable interference Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co
(1961) 1 WLR 683 Leeman v Montagu (1936) 2 ALL ER 1677
keeping a large number of cockerels in a residential area held
to constitute a nuisance.

• b. duration the shorter the duration the less likely to be

unreasonable. Andreae v Selfridge & Co ltd (1938) Ch1
• c. an isolated or single escape Bolton v Stone a nuisance
must be a state of affairs however temporary and not merely
an isolated happening see also Midwoood v Manchester
Corporation (1905) 2 KB 597

• d. sensitivity if a plaintiff puts his land to an extraordinary or

sensitive use and suffers material damage then the defendant
will not be held liable. Eastern & South African Telegraph Coo
v Cape Town Tramways Co (1902) AC 381

• e. Intent: A malicious conduct may make an otherwise non

actionable act actionable. If the defendants primary object in
doing an act is to injure his neighbour. Christie v Davey (1893)
1 Ch 316 and Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895) AC 587
• Defences
• a. prescription: right to commit the nuisance by openly doing it for
at least 20 years Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
• b. statutory authority :The fact that a defendant is operating the
activity in question under statutory powers does not preclude
liability. The defendant must still prove they had used all
reasonable diligence in preventing the nuisance. Manchester
Corporation v Farmworth (1930) AC 171 Haley v London Electricity
Board (1965) AC 778

• Remedies for nuisance include: damages, injunction and

abatement
• Damages may be for : damage to property, depreciation in value of
property, loss of business and personal injuries.
• If the nuisance is continuing subsequent actions for nuisance can
also be brought.
• Public Nuisance AG v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) 2 QB
169. per Lord Denning ‘public nuisance must be
referable to the generality of her majesty’s subjects .
So widespread in its range so indiscriminate in its
effects.. That it becomes the responsibility of the
whole community’

• It is an act which affects or endangers the life, health,

property, morals or comfort of the public or to obstruct
the public in the exercise of rights common to all..
Usually public nuisance suits are instituted by the Attorney-
General on behalf of the public.

Public nuisance may lend itself to an action in torts by an

individual only if that individual can show that he has suffered
damage over and above that suffered by other members of the
public.

Public nuisance is not dependent on land Halsey v Esso

Petroleum (1961) 2 ALL ER 145.
Example of public nuisance is obstructing the highway. Jacobs v
London County Council (1950 ) AC 361

Remedies for public nuisance: prosecution by the AG any

criminal fines applicable and an injunction to prevent ongoing
activity if required
• Aidoo v Adjei (1976) 1 GLR 431
• CFC Construction Ltd v ATCC (1968) GLR 36