The court considered the question of whether excess noise could constitute a nuisance.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a resident of a district specially devoted to a particular trade cannot complained of nuisance by noise caused by the carrying on of a branch of that trade short of proving carelessness and unreasonable use. However, a resident in a noisy district must put up with a certain amount of noise, and the standard of ordinary comfort will differ according to the situation of the property and the class of people who inhabit it. The approach is therefore whether ‘the addition of a fresh noise caused by the defendant’s works may be so substantial as to create a legal nuisance’.
Cozens-Hardy LJ said: ‘I think the addition of a fresh noise caused by the defendant’s works may be so substantial as to create a legal nuisance. It does not follow that because I live, say, in the manufacturing part of Sheffield I cannot complain if a steam-hammer is introduced next door, and so worked as to render sleep at night almost impossible, although previously to its introduction my house was a reasonably comfortable abode, having regard to the local standard; and it would be no answer to say that the steam-hammer is of the most modern approved pattern and is reasonably worked. In short, if a substantial addition is found as a fact in any particular case, it is no answer to say that the neighbourhood is noisy, and that the defendant’s machinery is of first-class character.’ and ‘A resident in such a neighbourhood must put up with a certain amount of noise. The standard of comfort differs according to the situation of the property and the class of people who inhabit it.’
Cozens-Hardy LJ
[1906] Ch D 234
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Appeal from – Polsue and Alfieri v Rushmer HL 1907
The House approved a decision that a person purchasing property in an industrial district may be unable to claim for noise nuisance. Lord Loreburn LC said that (i) whether an activity gives rise to a nuisance may depend on the character of the . .
Cited – Murdoch and Another v Glacier Metal Company Limited CA 19-Jan-1998
Excess noise by nearby factory above World Health Organisation level was not an actionable nuisance. It was a question for each factual situation. An allowance had to be made for the character of the neighbourhood. . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.182121
