Private Nuisance

Definition: An unlawful( unreasonable ) interference for a substantial length of

time with a persons right to enjoy or use his land in a reasonable way’..

Claimant : What is required to be a Defendant : Who can C claim against?

claimant?

Is C someone with a legal interest in the land ?, 1. D is the creator of the nuisance
usually a tenant occupier , or a landlord. ( Hunter v 2. Or an occupier that continues the activities of previous occupier
Canary Wharf – wife did not have a legal interest in (Sedleigh Denfield )
land so unable to claim) 3. Landlords can be liable if they authorise actions of tenant e.g city
council Tetley v Chittey

Interference should be indirect and interfere with d’s right to enjoy his own land.The law
balances the competing interests of the claimant and D’s right to use his own land how he
sees fit.

Interference must amount to it being unreasonable: c is expected to put up with some reasonable
interference.

1. Does it interfere with C’s ordinary existence ?

2. Is impact on C so unreasonable he should not be expected to put up with it ?

If physical damage is involved, relatively small nuisances are actionable. Ig interference is loss of amenity , c must
show that ‘there is a material interference with the ordinary existence of C. Factors to be considered :
2.Duration :
If incident is a one off
Factors To or irregular Consider
occurrence unlikely to
be a nuisance ( Bolton 5.Social
1. Locality: v Stone )
3. Sensitivity of 4.Malice
claimant. utility/benefit:
Is area industrial or Contrasting decision: If d does something
If claimant is suing The usefulness of d’s
rural/residential deliberately to
Crown River Cruises because he needs to conduct has a bearing
annoy or disrupt c’s
Sturges v Brigman – (fireworks lasted 20 use the land for a on whether c ought
enjoyment of land .
‘What would be a minutes). Also particularly sensitive reasonably to put up
Malicious motive
nuisance in Belgrave consider the time of purpose, claim will with it. Miller v
( Hollywood Silver
Square may not day. fail unless he can Fox Farm, Christie v Jackson; Dennis v
necessarily be a show it would affect Ministry of Defence
Must be a significant Davey )
nuisance in normal( reasonable contrast with Tate
Bermondsey.’ interference – Tate
use) Modern’s
modern posed a
( what if its part substantial ‘exceptional use of
commercial part interference with cs land ‘outweighed
residential ? enjoyment social benefit .

Defences To An Action In Private Nuisance

 1. Statutory Authority :

Statutory Authority : Strategic Planning by LA

If activity is carried out by power Prescription
of a statute . c will not be able to Defence maybe available if d has
sue in negligence : If there is evidence that been able to carry out the activity
the local authority has a for 20 years or more to the
Allen v Gulf Oil . strategic plan to change claimants knowledge.
Also no action in nuisance if the character of the
parliament has already created neighbourhood, then this If activity is carried out by power
remedies for d’s actions : could be a defence as the of a statute . c will not be able to
neighbourhood maybe sue in negligence :
Marcic v Thames Water transitioning from a part
Allen v Gulf Oil .
residential/part industrial
to a fully industrial Also no action in nuisance if
Remedies commercial area . parliament has already created
remedies for d’s actions :

Marcic v Thames Water

Injunction – this will be an order requiring the activity to stop. Courts unwilling
to do this where there is a social benefit to the community .( Miller v jackson) C
sought an injunction to stop cricket being played close to his property. Hled it
was in the interests of community life that the activity continued. See
contrasting decision with Kennaway v Thompson – held there was a substantial
nuisance due to the very load noise of the power boats

Damages – in cases of physical damage , damages are awarded for

consequential loss or damage to land.
In Dennis v Ministry of Defence , the court refused to grant an injunction because
of the social utility of the RAF force, but accepted there had been physical
damage to Cs land which had reduced its value, so awarded damages payable
for that.
Wagonmound – Claimant may only recover losses that are reasonably
foreseeable.
Abatement – a self- help remedy which gives C the right to deal with the
nuisance himself e.g chopping off the branches of an over hanging tree.