An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance according to the ordinary rule of law; and this whatever he locality may be where he act is done; and where, on trial of such an action, it appears that the act complained of was done on the land of the defendant, the jury cannot properly be asked whether the causing of the nuisance was a reasonable use by the defendant of his own land.
Bramwell B said: ‘There must be, then, some principle on which such cases must be excepted. It seems to me that that principle may be deduced from the character of these cases, and is this, viz: that those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action . . There is an obvious necessity for such a principle as I have mentioned. It is as much for the advantage of one owner as of another; for the very nuisance the one complains of, as the result of the ordinary use of his neighbour’s land, he himself will create in the ordinary use of his own, and the reciprocal nuisances are of a comparatively trifling character. The convenience of such a rule may be indicated by calling it a rule of give and take, live and let live.’
Erle CJ, Williams and Keating JJ, Bramwell and Wilde BB
[1860] EngR 1082, (1860) 3 B and S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 1860
Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.285921
