Tort - Nuisance

A will have committed the tort of nuisance if he has created, authorised, adopted or continued a state of affairs that has unreasonably interfered with or is unreasonably interfering with either:

• The use and enjoyment of the land in which B has sufficient interest
• Some right associated with that land

• An inference does not have to involved risk of injury or physical harm to anyone

• Where the inference does not cause physical damage, the locality of the inference will be considered

• An amount of give and take is considered, nobody should complain about insubstantial inferences

• Court balances claimants right to use his land without unreasonable interference vs. The Defendants right to use his land without unreasonable restriction

'The very essence of private nuisance is the unreasonable use by a man, of his land, to the detriment of his neighbour'

• Physical damage to property

• Interference with personal enjoyment of land

• Interference with commercial interests

• Right to light

• Personal Injury

• Right to a view

• Right to television reception

• Vibration damage - Malone v Laskey

• Roots - Davey v Harrow Corporation

• Heat damage - Robinson v Kilvert

• Flood Damage - Sedleigh-Denfield v Callaghan

• Unpleasant smells and fumes - St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

• Noise - Sturges v Bridgeman

• Smoke, dust and other emissions - Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co

• Immoral activity - Laws v Floringplace

• Disruption to business interests - Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett

• Electromagnetic interference with electronic business equipment - Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Morris

• Must allow sufficient lighting for ordinary living - Regan v Paul Properties

• Hunter v Canary Wharf

• Bland v Moseley

• Hunter v Canary Wharf

• Indirect (Direct would be an intentional tort)

• Substantial - 'materially interferes with the ordinary confort physically of human existence, not simply elegant or dainty modes or habits of living' - Walter v Selfe

• To the land/interests in land or use /enjoyment of land

• Only a person with a proprietary interest in, or exclusive possession of the affected land may sue in nuisance - Malon v Laskey (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

• Ownership of freehold estate - including reversionary interest
• Leasehold interest - Hunter v Canary Wharf
• Exclusive occupation - Hunter v Canary Wharf
• A tenant subject to a possession order who is a tolerated trespasser - Pemberton v Southwark LBC

• Occupation as a home is NOT enough - Hunter v Canary Wharf
• Licencesee without exclusive occupation is NOT enough - Malone v Laskey

• Incompatible - A.8(1) makes no differentiation between citizens with/without proprietary interest - McKenna v British Aluminium Ltd

• Instead, test is sufficient and continuous links - Khatun v United Kingdom

• Individuals denied nuisance action for lack of sufficient proprietary interest in land may be able to claim a remedy against a public authority defendant under HRA 1998 - Dobson v Thames Water Utilities

• Creator of Nuisance

• Occupier

• Vicarious Liability

• Contractors

• Acts of Nature

• Landlord

• Even if no longer in occupation or possession of the land - Hall v Beckenham Corporation

• Need not have proprietary interest or exclusive possession of the land - Thomas

• Will NOT be liable where they cannot rectify situation - Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc

• Liability for guests if occupier knew or ought to have known of the inference and fails to take reasonable steps to control guest - White v Jamieson

• Liability if occupier knows or ought to have known about a nuisance created by trespassers that he:

• Adopts for his own purpose - Page Motors Ltd v Epsom v Ewell Borough Council

• Continues by failing to take steps to stop it - Sedleight-Denfield v O'Callaghan

• Occupiers generally not liable for independent contractors

• Occupier may be liable where he was under a non-delegable duty - Bower v Peate

• Occupier may be liable where there is a particular foreseeable risk of nuisance

• Occuier may be liable where contractor is working on the highway and is a danger to users of the highway

• Occupier liable if he knows or ought to have known about nuisance on land created by an act of nature that he

• Fails to take reasonable steps to abate - Goldman v Hargrave

• Additionally tested to consider occupiers cost and inconvenience of abating nuisance - Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council

• Will not ususally be liable for nuisance on their land - Hussain v Lancaster

• Landlord can only be liable where there is a positive tort - Southward London Borough Council v Mills