What is public nuisance
Public nuisance is when acts or omissions cause widespread harm
Is a crime but becomes actionable in tort law if the claimant(general public) suffers particular damage over and above the damage suffered by the public generally
What is private nuisance
Private nuisance involves acts or omissions which causes substantial interference with the use of enjoyment of land
Hunter v Canary wharf
Imposes 3 subsections to private nuisance
- Nuisance by encroachment on neighbours land - moving the boundary
- Nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbours land - Dig hole in land
- Nuisance by interference with neighbours quiet enjoyment of land - noise
These are concerned with protecting rights of an occupier in respect of unreasonable interference with engagement of land
Legal interest in land
In order to bring a claim of nuisance, claimant must have legal interest in land, not necessarily ownership - Malone v Laskey
Unlawful interference
Private nuisance requires an unreasonable use of land by the D which leads to an unreasonable interference with the claimants use or enjoyment of their land - Coventry v Lawrence
London Borough of Southwark v Mills, Baxter v LB Camden
In assessing the reasonableness of the use and reasonableness of interference the courts take all the circumstances into account including …
What will courts consider
The nature of the locality/neighbourhood - industrial estate or residential area
- Duration
- Sensitivity
- Malice
Duration
Most nuisance consists of a continuing state of affairs. Most instances claimant is seeking an injunction to prevent the continuous of such nuisances. In general the longer the nuisance lasts the greater the interference and the greater likelihood of it being held unlawful. De Keysers Royal Hotel v Spicer bros
De Keysers Royal Hotel v Spicer bros
Private nuisance did not require that the nuisance be completely permanent in nature, but it was required that it was continuous
Sensitivity
If the claimant is abnormally sensitive or their use of land is particularly sensitive, the D will not be liable unless the activity would have amounted to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner. - Robinson v Klivert
Robinson v Klivert
D’s carrying out their lawful business on their property would not have injured anything but an unusually delicate trade so not liable
Malice
Where the D acts out of malice, the actions are more likely to be held unreasonably - Hollywood Silver fox farm v Emmet
Hollywood Silver fox farm v Emmet
D liable despite abnormality of foxes sensitivity as he was acting out of malice
Locality
The reasonableness of the use of land will be assessed with regards to the nature of the locality in deciding whether there is an actionable nuisance. Thesiger LJ stated in the case of Sturges v Bridgman, “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”
Planning permission
Planning permission may have an effect of changing the nature of the locality but cannot give permission for a nuisance. Also public benefit may also be considered
Foreseeability
Foreseeability of type of damage is important in claims, courts will undertake a balancing exercise between competing rights of land and right of the neighbour to have his use/enjoyment of land interfered with
Malone v Laksey
To claim for nuisance, the claimant must have an interest in the land affected by the nuisance.
Coventry v Lawrence
Court upheld that a private nuisance could exist if an activity is unreasonable, even with permission from the local council
