Vaughan v Menlove: 1837

Citations:

[1837] EngR 328, (1837) 7 Car and P 525, (1837) 173 ER 232 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoVaughan v Menlove 1837
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff’s house. At . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.313445

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc: CA 30 Jul 2001

Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromWandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc QBD 2-Nov-2000
The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority’s costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136156

Delaware Mansions Limited, Flecksun Limited v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of The City of Westminster: CA 21 Jul 1999

A number of blocks of mansion flats in Maida Vale were damaged by the root action of a plane tree for which the council were responsible. The freehold in the blocks, known as Delaware Mansions, was sold by the Church Commissioners to the second appellants in 1990 for andpound;1. . The flats were subject to long leases and the first appellant company had been formed to act as the maintenance and service company for the tenants, who owned the company. The second appellant company was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the first appellant company.
In 1989, there were reports of cracking in parts of the structure of the blocks and engineers were instructed on behalf of the first appellants. The engineers submitted a brief report and this was followed by further investigation. At a time after the second appellants had become freeholders, the appellants’ expert opinion was disclosed to the council. The engineers believed, as the judge put it, that ‘either the tree should be felled or the property should be underpinned’. The cost of remedial work if the tree had been felled was very small and, it is common ground, can be ignored for present purposes. The removal of the tree would have ended the nuisance. Thr court was asked whether the Council was liable in uisance.

Judges:

Beldam, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1903, 68 Con LR 172, (2000) 32 HLR 664, [2000] BLR 1, [1999] 46 EG 194, [1999] 3 EGLR 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDelaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135827

Vella v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 14 Nov 2005

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The contention that a lack of adequate sound insulation can cause premises to be in such a state as to be prejudicial to health for the purposes of s79 (1 )(a) is no longer sustainable following Everett and Oakley. The application was dismissed.

Judges:

Keene LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2473 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBirmingham District Council v Kelly 1985
. .
CitedRegina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Ferrero Ltd CA 1993
The case concerned the prohibition in respect of chocolate eggs containing plastic toys one of which had been swallowed by and choked to death a small boy, and a power in the interests of public safety to prohibit the sale of particular goods, which . .
CitedSouthwark 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 . .
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
CitedNetwork Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Oakley HL 29-Nov-2000
When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory . .
CitedRegina v Bristol City Council ex parte Everett Admn 13-May-1998
The risk of an accident from a steep staircase to a disabled tenant was not a statutory nuisance. The possibility of an accident is not the same as a source of injury to health. Buxton LJ: ‘The limitation of the reach of this Statute to disease and . .
CitedRegina v Parlby 1889
Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively . .
CitedHaringey London Borough Council v Jowett QBD 27-Apr-1999
Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest. . .
CitedGreater London Council v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 1983
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.235204

Fay v Prentice And Another: 1845

A declaration in case stated that the defendant, being possessed of a messuage adjoining a garden of the plaintiff, erected a cornice upon his messuage, projecting over the garden, by means whereof rain-water flowed from the cornice into the garden, and damaged the same, and the plaintiff had been incommoded in the possession and enjoyment of his garden.
Held: The erection of the cornice was a nuisance from which the law would infer injury to the plaintiff ; and that he was entitled to maintain an action in respect thereof, without proof that rain had fallen between the period of the erection of the cornice and the commencement of the action: Held, also, that the declaration was not to be construed as alleging a trespass.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 79, (1845) 1 CB 828, (1845) 135 ER 769

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLemmon v Webb HL 27-Nov-1894
A land-owner was free to lop off boughs from his neighbours trees to the extent that they reached over his land, and he could lop them without going on to the neighbour’s land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so. . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.303221

Robinson v Workington Corporation: CA 1897

Mr Robinson’s houses were damaged by water overflowing from the council’s public sewers. The sewers were adequate until new houses were built. He claimed damages in respect of the council’s failure to build a new sewer of sufficient dimensions to carry off the increased volume of sewage.
Held: The court dismissed his claim. The 1875 Act provided a mechanism for enforcing performance of the statutory drainage obligation. The remedy available for breach of the drainage obligation was determined by the statute, which provided that in cases of default the Local Government Board should make an appropriate order which, if not complied with, was enforceable by a writ of mandamus. That was the only remedy: ‘It has been laid down for many years that, if a duty is imposed by statute which but for the statute would not exist, and a remedy for default or breach of that duty is provided by the statute that creates the duty, that is the only remedy. The remedy in this case is under section 299, which points directly to section 15, and shews what is to be done for default of the duty imposed by that section. That is not the remedy sought for in this action, which is brought to recover damages.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1897] 1 QB 619

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedGlossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board 1878
The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time. . .

Cited by:

CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
ConfirmedPasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council HL 1898
Where an Act creates an obligation, and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.
Earl of Halsbury LC said: ‘The principle that where a specific remedy is given . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.188627

Pemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark: CA 13 Apr 2000

A tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser after a possession order. She made regular payments but failed to comply with the order setting terms for suspension. She sought damages from the landlord for nuisance for not dealing with an infestation of cockroaches. The landlord authority asserted that she had insufficient interest to found a claim. She was not a tenant.
Held: Her continued occupation with the implicit consent of the authority, ‘the peculiar status of a ‘tolerated trespasser”, was sufficient to make her an occupier able to claim in nuisance.

Judges:

Roch LJ, Clarke LJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 128, [2000] 1 WLR 1672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
CitedWillis and Another v Derwentside District Council ChD 10-Apr-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging the escape of noxious CO2 gas from the defendant’s neighbouring land. The gas originated from old coal workings.
Held: There had come to be a liability falling in the defendant from 2006. Its delay in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84643

Haringey London Borough Council v Jowett: QBD 27 Apr 1999

Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 365, [1999] 32 HLR 308

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Cited by:

CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81241

Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council: QBD 19 Apr 2000

A smoke nuisance can be established on the basis of the smell of smoke alone. It was not necessary to establish the presence of visible smoke. Smoke primarily means visible smoke, but even in common parlance can include the smell. The statutory definition included soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. The smell related to the detection of smoke which constituted the offence.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000, Times 19-Apr-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 319

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81047

Cunningham v Birmingham City Council: Admn 6 May 1997

The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural problems. She said that the kitchen was, in view of his condition too small and dangerous in its layout.
Held: Whether premises are ‘prejudicial to health’ is an objective not a subjective test; there is no contrast with the test for nuisance. The magistrate had been wrong to determine the case in the way he did by relating the respondents’ duties to the particular health requirements of Robert, the son of the the appellant.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Astill J

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 440

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
CitedNational Coal Board v Thorne 2-Jan-1976
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken . .
CitedHall v The Manchester Corporation 1915
Lord Parker set out the test which to be applied when considering whether a property was fit for human habitation: ‘I desire to add that if the corporation are minded to make a new order under section 41 dealing with the houses in question, they . .
CitedMorgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79709

Camden London Borough Council v London Underground Ltd: QBD 7 Jan 2000

The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78852

Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council: CA 8 Jan 2001

A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an obstruction leading to the claimant’s property being flooded. It was checked regularly, but no steps taken to increase the capacity. It was held that the local authority could become liable in nuisance when such a feature for which they had responsibility came to be an obstruction to the escape of material occurring naturally on land.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 300, [2000] EWCA Civ 299, [2001] BLR 55

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 41 58(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council QBD 5-Nov-1999
Owners of land downstream of a culvert had their lands flooded after works on land upstream changed the water flow, causing the culvert to be inadequate to cope with the water now running off.
Held: The culvert did not constitute a nuisance, . .
CitedCorporation of Greenock v Caledonian Railway Company HL 1917
The West Burn flowed in a channel considerably below the surrounding ground which drained into it and in particular was below the level of Inverkip Road. In 1908, in order to form a playground for children, the natural channel of the West Burn was . .
CitedSedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
AppliedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
CitedPemberton v Bright and Another CA 1960
A culvert had been altered and extended in 1926 and the entrance left uncovered and unprotected.
Held: The interference with the flow of water created a potential nuisance in that ‘heavy rain was always a potential danger unless properly . .
CitedRadstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .
CitedGoldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
CitedRex v Bell 1822
‘that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time’ . .
CitedGlossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board 1878
The local authority was held not liable for damage caused by an overflow of their sewage systems which had been adequate when installed but became inadequate over time. . .
CitedSmeaton v Ilford Corporation ChD 1954
Overloading caused the corporation’s foul sewer to erupt through a manhole and discharge ‘deleterious and malodorous matter’ into Mr Smeaton’s garden.
Held: The authority were not liable for the connections with the sewer and discharge of . .
CitedGreat Central Railway v Hewlett HL 1916
A railway company had been empowered to erect in a highway certain gateposts and in a war-time blackout a taxi-driver had run into them. The company was found not liable for the accident.
Held: The accident was caused by the post which had . .
CitedMoore v Lambeth Waterworks Co 1886
The defendants were found not liable when a fireplug lawfully fixed in a highway had become exposed as the road surface had worn. . .
CitedThompson v Brighton Corporation CA 1894
A manhole cover became exposed as the road surface eroded, causing injury.
Held: The Corporation were not liable. . .
CitedPride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd CA 1953
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show . .
CitedHurst and Another v Hampshire County Council CA 19-Jun-1997
A Local Authority is liable for any damage to adjacent property caused by the roots of a tree growing on the verge of a public highway.
Held: Pre-adoption trees vest in the highway authority for all purposes. . .
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedNeath Rural District Council v Williams QBD 1951
A watercourse became silted by natural causes and the local authority served an abatement notice on the landowner, who failed to respond, and when prosecuted relied on a proviso which excluded from liability ‘any person other than the person by . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
CitedDear v Thames Water and Others 1992
. .
CitedJob Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors CA 1924
Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out . .

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78788

Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council: QBD 5 Nov 1999

Owners of land downstream of a culvert had their lands flooded after works on land upstream changed the water flow, causing the culvert to be inadequate to cope with the water now running off.
Held: The culvert did not constitute a nuisance, since following earlier cases, and an extension of the law of nuisance to that of negligence, the owner of a riparian property took the risk of flooding as a natural consequence of owning such land. Although the culvert taking the dyke under Cemetery Lane when originally constructed caused some interference with the flows when it was constructed, ‘that evidence. . . does not in my judgment demonstrate that the culvert then gave rise to a nuisance. In my judgment the evidence as to flooding, both positive and negative, shows that when constructed the culvert was of adequate capacity to carry the natural flow of water within the dyke; and that the flooding in 1993 and 1996 and the continuing risk of flooding of the site agreed by the experts . . . are the result of changes within the catchment area.’

Judges:

Robert Owen QC

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999

Citing:

appliedRadstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78790

Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence: CA 16 Jun 1998

Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants from the order of the trial judge (Carnwath J) awarding the plaintiffs damages for the breach of duty imposed by section 7(1)(a) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 on the licensee of a nuclear site to ensure that no occurrence involving nuclear matter caused damage to any property of any person other than the licensee. Damage within the Act occurred if there was some alteration in the physical characteristics of the land caused by radioactive properties which rendered it less useful or less valuable. Aldous LJ said that the addition of plutonium to the topsoil rendered the characteristics of the marshland different and, further, that the result of the addition was that the marshland became less useful and less valuable. The plaintiffs’ land was less valuable because the estate was unsaleable until the contaminated soil had been removed and less useful because the level of contamination was such that the topsoil of the marsh had to be excavated and removed from the site because the level of radioactivity exceeded that which was allowed by the regulations. In short, the cause of action arose because the amenity or utility of the plaintiffs’ land was impaired by contamination from the plutonium.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Aldous, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .
CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78452

Dwyer v Mansfield: 1946

The plaintiff shopkeepers complained of obstructions caused by customers queuing outside the defendant’s vegetable shop. He was selling rationed vegetables in the quantities licensed. The judge had found that neither nuisance, nor damage had been established.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant was carrying out an essential public service in an appropriate normal and proper manner. Even if nuisance had been established, a complaint would not lie unless he could be shown to have behaved in some excessive or unreasonable manner. The queues were caused by the shortage of potatoes.

Citations:

[1946] KB 437, [1946] 2 All ER 247, [1947] LJR 894, 175 LT 61, 62 TLR 401, 90 Sol Jo 443

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHarper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621479

Laws v Florinplace Ltd: 1981

A large shop sign was erected advertising a ‘Sex Centre and Cinema Club’, the premises of which opened a few days later. Signs were put in the shop window, one of which advertised ‘Uncensored adult videos for sale or available’ and others of which gave a warning that the premises showed explicit sex acts. The adjoining property owner sought an interlocutory injunction.
Held: The court granted the interlocutory injunction to restrain until trial, the business of the shop, the shop signs and other forms of advertisement. There was a triable issue whether the existence of a business of the kind in question, conducted in the way in which it was conducted, so that the nature of the business was evident to the nearby residents and their visitors, was a nuisance. It was sufficiently arguable that the knowledge by occupants of the plaintiffs’ properties of the use of the defendant’s premises was a material interference with the comfortable enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ properties.

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 659

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThompson-Schwab v Costaki CA 1956
The sight of prostitutes entering and leaving the defendant’s premises was so offensive as to be actionable in nuisance by a neighbouring owner. . .

Cited by:

CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.619260

Baten’s Case: 1610

Citations:

(1610) 9 Co Rep 53b

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.619258

West Leigh Colliery Company Limited v Tunnicliffe and Hampson Limited: HL 1908

The court considered the issue of surface subsidence as a nuisance owing to the working of minerals under or adjoining his property.
Held: depreciation in the market value of the property attributable to the risk of future subsidence cannot be taken into account. To recover damages the surface owner is obliged to wait until the damage or injury caused by subsidence has happened.

Citations:

[1908] AC 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.619259

Fleming v Hislop: HL 1886

Lord Halsbury LC said that ‘whether the man went to the nuisance or the nuisance came to the man, the rights are the same’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

(1886) LR 11 App Cas 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCoventry 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.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.536797

Munro v Southern Dairies: 18 Apr 1955

(Victoria) Nuisance – Horses kept on dairy premises without proper stabling – Interference with use and enjoyment of neighbouring premises – Loss of sleep by neighbouring occupier as a result thereof – Whether reasonable’ use of the premises or public benefit are defences – Whether a trade essential to the locality can be complained of – Extent to which evidence of economic necessity for delivery of milk by horse – drawn vehicles is relevant – Jurisdiction to refuse injunction – on undertaking by defendant to erect proper stables.
Sholl J said: ‘If a man chooses to make his home in the heart of a coalfield or in a manufacturing district, he can expect no more freedom from the discomfort usually associated with such a place than any other resident can.’ but granted an injunction: ‘To restrain the defendant, by its directors, servants and agents, from causing or permitting on the premises at Grenville Street and Whylis Street, Hampton, on which it now conducts its business, any nuisance (whether by way of smell, noise or flies . . )’

Judges:

Sholl J

Citations:

[1955] VLR 332, [1955] ALR 793, [1955] VicLawRp 60

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

CitedCoventry 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.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.536799

Almeroth v WE Chivers and Son Ltd: CA 1948

The plaintiff peddler had his barrow by one kerb. He crossed the road to serve a customer, but on return when crossing the kerb from a roadway tripped over a small pile of slates and was injured. The slates did not overlap the kerb. They had been left there for collection as part of the clearance of war damaged buildings.
Held: The slates were a nuisance, even though they made no substantial obstruction.
The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The slates ‘might easily not be noticed by a reasonably careful person crossing the road as the plaintiff did’, talking to someone. Somervell LJ said that a person walking along a pavement does not have to keep ‘his eyes on the ground to see whether or not there is any obstacle in his path’.
The ordinary principles of causation in tort are applicable to an action in nuisance. The obstacle was capable of being a nuisance despite its small size.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 All ER 53, 92 Sol Jo 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHarper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

CitedWoodland 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.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.517227

Leeds v Shakerley: 1599

In an action for diverting a water-course from one of three mills, on not guilty, the ven. Fac. shall be where the nuisance was done, sed aliter on a prescription; but a seisin of the mill at the time of the nuisance must be shewn.

Citations:

[1653] EngR 1212, (1599) Cro Eliz 751, (1653) 78 ER 983 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedCoventry 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.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.413519

Regina v Lister and Biggs: 1856

The defendants were indicted with knowingly depositing in their warehouse, which was close to public streets, excessive quantities of a dangerous ignitable and explosive fluid called wood naptha. The assertion was that, as a result, the neighbouring and passing public was in great danger of their lives and property and kept in great alarm and terror: if there were to be a fire in the warehouse, it could not be quenched and would produce disastrous consequences in the neighbourhood. The defendants were convicted.
Held: The indictment was upheld.
It was argued on behalf of the defendants that naptha was not self-inflammatory, that it was maintained with care, that it was not therefore dangerous and that the alarm of the public was not of itself sufficient to prove an indictable offence in nuisance. The fears of mankind, though they might be reasonable ones, would not create a nuisance, and he refused an injunction. The point being made was that the naptha in the warehouse did not represent an actual danger to the public. The argument was rejected.
Lord Campbell CJ said: ‘The law of this country would surely be very defective if life and property could be so exposed to danger by the act of another with impunity. There is no ground for saying that, according to the doctrine contended for by the prosecutor’s counsel, neither brandy nor wine, nor oil, nor any ignitable substance, could be kept in the cellar of a town house without the owner of the house being liable to imprisonment. The substance must be of such a nature and kept in such large quantities, and under such local circumstances, as to create real danger to life and property. The well founded apprehension of danger which would alarm men of steady nerves and reasonable courage, passing through the street in which the house stands, or residing in adjoining houses, is enough to show that something has been done which the law ought to prevent by pronouncing it to be a misdemeanour. Accordingly, to manufacture, or to keep in large quantities, in towns or closely inhabited places, gunpowder (which for this purpose cannot be distinguished from naptha) is by the common law of England a nuisance and an indictable offence. . . it is a question of fact for the jury whether the keeping and depositing, or the manufacturing of such substances, really does create danger to life and property as alleged – and this must be a question of degree, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. No general rule of law can be laid down beyond this, that the substantial allegations in the indictment must be substantially proved. In the present case we think that sufficient, although not necessarily conclusive, evidence was adduced, and that although the Judge would not have been justified in directing a verdict of guilty to be entered without taking the opinion of the jury upon it, he was fully justified in telling the jury (which he appears to have done) that if the depositing and keeping the naptha in the manner described, coupled with its liability to ignition ab extra, created danger to life and property to the degree alleged, they might find a verdict of guilty. Whether the liability to ignition ab extra could properly be taken into consideration by the jury, he reserved for our opinion, and we answer – Yes. The conviction must therefore be affirmed.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

[1856] EngR 30, (1856-1857) Dears and B 209, (1856) 169 ER 979

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.290785

Barker v Herbert: CA 1911

The Defendant owned a house near the highway. A rail in a nearby fence of the area railing had been broken away by some boys, and there was therefore a gap in the railings. A child climbed through fell into an open area, injuring himself. The Defendant did not live in the house, and knew nothing of the the removal of the rail which had happened only three days before the accident. The case in nuisance was dismissed on the facts by the jury.
Held: The appeal failed. Vaughan Williams LJ analysed the case of Saxby and said that the effect of each judgment would say that to impose liability upon the possessor of land in such a case, there must be either the creation of a nuisance by him or a continuance by him of a nuisance.
Fletcher Moulton LJ said that: ‘In a case where the nuisance is created by the act of a trespasser, it is done without the permission of the owner and against his will, and he cannot in any sense be said to have caused the nuisance; but the law recognizes that there may be a continuance by him of the nuisance. In that case the gravamen is the continuance of the nuisance, and not the original causing of it. An owner of premises may have a duty to prevent the continuance of the nuisance, but it is obvious that, just as where the allegation is that he has caused the nuisance it must be proved that it was there by his act or that of some one for whose action he is responsible, so, where it is alleged that he is responsible for the continuance of the nuisance it must be proved that it was continued by his permission. He cannot be said to have permitted the continuance of that of which he had no knowledge.’
The knowledge of servants and agents for whom the owner is responsible must be attributed to him, and that cases might arise in which his or their want of knowledge may be due to neglect of duty.

Judges:

Vaughan Williams LJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ and Farwell LJ

Citations:

(1911) 2 KBD 633

Citing:

CitedSaxby v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co 1869
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had diverted a water course causing them damage. . .

Cited by:

CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276815

Trevetts v Lee: CA 1955

Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The law as regards obstruction to highways is conveniently stated in a passage in Salmond on Torts, 13th edition: ‘A nuisance to a highway consists either in obstructing it or in rendering it dangerous’. Then a numbed of examples are given which seem to me to show that prima facie at any rate when you put an obstruction to a highway you mean something which permanently or temporarily removes the whole or part of the highway from the public use altogether.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 113, [1955] 1 All ER 406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHarper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

CitedDymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.265919

Lloyds Bank plc v Guardian Assurance plc: CA 1986

The statutory control over building works provided under s.60 is capable of operating quite separately from the private law tort of nuisance.

Judges:

Sir John Arnold P and Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 35 BLR 34

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 60

Cited by:

CitedHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266303

Dear v Thames Water and Others: 1992

Citations:

(1992) 33 Con LR 43

Citing:

DistinguishedPride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd CA 1953
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent.
Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show . .

Cited by:

CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220843

Rex v Bell: 1822

‘that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time’

Citations:

(1822) 1 LJKB (OS) 42

Cited by:

AppliedRadstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v Norton-Radstock Urban District Council 1976
. .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220839

Moore v Lambeth Waterworks Co: 1886

The defendants were found not liable when a fireplug lawfully fixed in a highway had become exposed as the road surface had worn.

Citations:

(1886) 17 QBD 46

Cited by:

ApprovedGreat Central Railway v Hewlett HL 1916
A railway company had been empowered to erect in a highway certain gateposts and in a war-time blackout a taxi-driver had run into them. The company was found not liable for the accident.
Held: The accident was caused by the post which had . .
CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220840

Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co and London and St Katharine Dock Co: 1887

Damages in nuisance are not to be increased by any subdivision of interests.

Judges:

Cotton LJ

Citations:

(1887) 36 Ch D 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195595

Thompson-Schwab v Costaki: CA 1956

The sight of prostitutes entering and leaving the defendant’s premises was so offensive as to be actionable in nuisance by a neighbouring owner.

Citations:

[1956] 1 All ER 652, [1956] 1 WLR 335

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedLaws v Florinplace ChD 1981
The defendants purchased a shop in a residential area and used it as a sex shop. Residents claimed in nuisance, and sought an injunction.
Held: The claim raised an arguable cause of action, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedLaws v Florinplace Ltd 1981
A large shop sign was erected advertising a ‘Sex Centre and Cinema Club’, the premises of which opened a few days later. Signs were put in the shop window, one of which advertised ‘Uncensored adult videos for sale or available’ and others of which . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190581

Davey v Harrow Corporation: CA 1957

The Plaintiff’s house was damaged by roots penetrating from trees on adjoining land. At first instance, Sellers J found that the damage was caused by the trees, but they were not proven to be the property of the defendants. On appeal and after further evidence it was found that the trees had been growing for some time on the defendants land.
Held: The defendants were liable in nuisance for damage caused by encroaching roots whether self sown or planted. Where a boundary hedge is delineated on an Ordnance Survey map by a line, the line indicates the centre of the existing hedge. This accords with the practice of the OS and courts can take notice of that practice as prima facie evidence of what a line on a map indicates. ‘After that Fisher -v- Winch and this, courts in future can take notice of this practice of the Ordnance Survey (that the boundary line on the map indicated the centre of the existing hedge) as at least prima facie evidence of what a line on the map indicates.’ As to damage by roots: ‘once it is established that encroachment by roots is a nuisance, it must follow that if damage is thereby caused, an action on the case will lie.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1957] 2 WLR 941, [1957] 2 All ER 305, [1958] 1 QB 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedFisher v Winch CA 1939
The land of both parties had been in common ownership. The first plot to be conveyed was sold by a conveyance which set out by reference to the numbers on an Ordnance map the different parcels with their description and acreage. The second . .
AppliedLemmon v Webb HL 27-Nov-1894
A land-owner was free to lop off boughs from his neighbours trees to the extent that they reached over his land, and he could lop them without going on to the neighbour’s land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so. . .
QuestionedGiles v Walker 1890
. .
ExplainedJames Dressel v Partnership Housing Ltd EAT 19-Mar-2003
EAT The appellant challenged the decision of the tribunal in that the chairman had sat alone despite the existence of a condition under s5 requiring him to consider acting with a panel.
Held: The chairman . .

Cited by:

CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183042

Turberville v Stamp: 1792

The defendant’s haystack spontaneously combusted and it was alleged that he had ‘wrongfully negligently and improperly kept his haystack so that it became liable to ignite’ and so be a danger to the claimant’s property. The jury were left to consider the question of negligence.
Held: The direction was upheld as the ‘common custom of the realm’. Tindal CJ said: ‘But there is a rule of law which says you must so employ your own property as not to injure that of another; and according to that rule the defendant is liable for the consequences of its own neglect; and though the defendant did not himself light the fire yet mediately, he is as much the cause of it as if he had himself put a candle to the rick; for it is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked.’

Citations:

(1792) 12 Mod 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoTurberville v Stamp In BR 1792
An action on the case, founded upon the general custom of the realm, against the defendant, for negligently keeping his fire; and the plaintiff declared that the defendant in his close did light up a fire to burn the stubble, and ignem suum tam . .
See AlsoTurberville v Stampe 1792
Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. acc. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the Act of God. A master is responsible for all acts dons by his servant in the . .
See AlsoTurberville v Stamp 1796
Action upon the case on the custom of the realm, for negligently keeping of his fire; declaring that the plaintiff was possessed of a close of heath ; that the defendant possessed of another close next adjoining ; and that the defendant tam . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.512020

Jordeson v Sutton, Southcotes and Drypool Gas Co: 1899

The defendants owned land adjacent to that of the plaintiff’s. Both plots were buillt over a deep substratum of wet sand, known as ‘running silt’. The defendants, in order to continue a development, drained the running silt under their own land, but this in turn led to subsidence in the plaintiff’s land as the silt collapsed. By statute the defendant was protected from liability in nuisance.
Held: The withdrawal of the support by draining the silt was a nuisance actionable at law, and the Act did not protect the defendant in these circumstances.

Citations:

[1899] 2 Ch 217

Statutes:

Gas Works Clauses Act 1871 9

Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463638

Page Motors Limited v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council: QBD 1980

The plaintiff company were tenants of land adjoining land owned by the defendant council. Gypsies came to occupy the defendant’s land over several years and in increasing numbers. The Authority had obtained a possession order but had failed to enforce it being concerned that with no proper site elsewhere to move onto further damage would be caused. The plaintiffs claimed for damages in their reduced turnover.
Held: The plaintiffs succeeded. The defendants had the power and duty to provide alternative sites, and their delay of five years was unreasonable. The choice not to enforce the possession orders was from the Council’s own desire to avoid disturbance elsewhere, and therefore amounted to an adoption of the nuisance. However, the drop in turnover would not necessarily reflect directly in a loss of profit, and the plaintiff’s had to give credit for the associated reduction in their rating assessment.

Judges:

Balcombe J

Citations:

(1980) 78 LGR 505

Cited by:

Appeal fromPage Motors v Epsom Borough Council CA 9-Jul-1981
The plaintiffs were lessees of land neighbouring that of the Council. Over several years the council’s land had been occupied by gypsies who, it was said had damaged the plaintiff’s business. Though the Council had obtained a possession order in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Local Government, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.445030

Smith v Wilson: 1905

Citations:

(1903) 2 IR 45

Cited by:

CitedLyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420760

Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Co: 1930

The plaintiff complained in nuisance that the access to his home had been obstructed by people seeking to use the defendant hotel.
Held: The claim failed. If it was established that the defendant ‘has interfered substantially with the reasonable access to the plaintiff’s house’ the plaintiff would have satisfied the necessary conditions to enable him to maintain the action; in those circumstances he would have ‘sustained an injury affecting him particularly, in a manner beyond that which other members of the public are in fact affected’.
Luxmore J said: ‘It is necessary to determine whether the act complained of is an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living but according to plain and sober and simple notions among English people.’

Judges:

Luxmore J

Citations:

[1930] 1 Ch 138

Citing:

CitedLyons Son and Co v Gulliver CA 1914
The defendants operated the Palladium theatre. People wanting to attend queued either along the footpath or along the roadway itself in front of the premises from which the plaintiff neighbour carried on its business as lace merchants and wholesale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420761

Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd: CA 1959

The plaintiff had a path at the rear of his property. The defendant constructed a sewer under the path, and asked the plaintiff for permission. He gave it informally, not knowing at the time that he owned the land. The sewer was constructed. Though suffering no inconvenience, on discovering his ownership, the plaintiff requested the removal of the sewer and its manhole, and an associated injunction. The judge at trial found a trespass, but gave only nominal damages and refused an injunction.
Held: The plaintiff was not debarred from objecting when his acquiescence arose through ignorance. However the trespass was trivial, and no injunction was granted.
As to the cross appeal, though the trespass was forgiven by the consent, that could not answer the claim as to the continuing discharge since that would amount to an easement which would require a formal grant.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘it is true to say that if a man, having a proprietary right, proves an infringement of that right, prima facie he is entitled to an injunction: but that needs some qualification. It is not a matter of unqualified right; and one ground for denying an injunction would be that the wrong done is, in the circumstances, trivial. That proposition is founded on the well-known case of Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. (Directors) v. Broadbent . . The judge was here dealing with the claim as I have formulated it: and he came to the conclusion that the circumstances of this case were special, and, as his judgment shows, that the damage was trivial . . But there were other good grounds, and formidable grounds (as I think) for refusing the plaintiff an injunction. That he misled the defendants is beyond a peradventure. It is no less clear that he attempted to mislead the court. He asserted – contrary to the fact – that he had never had any conversation with the defendants about the matter at all; and in his evidence in chief he so swore, untruly. It is not, therefore, surprising that the judge came to the conclusion that he should grant no equitable relief; and in my judgment, on the facts of this case, he was well entitled to take that view.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1959] 2 QB 384, [1959] 2 All ER 651, [1959] 3 WLR 84, (1959) 123 JP 401, (1959) Sol Jo 508

Citing:

CitedImperial Gas Light and Coke Company v Broadbent HL 4-Aug-1859
If a Plaintiff applies for an injunction in respect of a violation of a common law right, and the existence of that right, or the fact of its violation is denied, he must establish his right at law, but having done that, he is, except under special . .

Cited by:

CitedPelling v Families Need Fathers Ltd CA 1-Aug-2001
The claimant, a member of the company, a charitable company limited by guarantee, sought a list of the company’s members. This was refused, and the court used a discretion not to order the list to be produced. The applicant sought to lead a group . .
CitedSt Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Equity, Nuisance, Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.278877

Paterson and Another v Humberside County Council: QBD 19 Apr 1995

A local authority was liable for nuisance for damage (cracks to house) caused by tree roots once it could be shown that it knew of the soil condition, by virtue of the council’s own warnings to residents of the danger in the area meant that the damage was foreseeable. The council was not liable for breach of statutory under the 1980 Act since it had not planted the trees.
The test of foreseeability was whether the risk was one which a reasonable person in the Defendant’s position would have regarded as a real risk as distinct from a risk which he would have been justified in disregarding and taking no steps to eliminate

Judges:

Mr Toulson QC

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-1995, [1995] CLY 3661, [1996] Const LJ 64

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 96

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBanque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-1995
The plaintiffs were mortgagees. The defendants were valuers. The defendants negligently over-valued properties and the plaintiffs then accepted mortgages of the properties. Later the property market collapsed and the various borrowers defaulted and . .

Cited by:

CitedLoftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing CA 28-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to recover for damages caused to their house foundations by trees growing nearby which were the responsibility of the defendants. The defendants replied that the damages was caused in part by roots from virgina creeper and . .
CitedBerent v Family Mosaic Housing and Others TCC 25-May-2011
The claimant sought damages for subsidence to her property allegedly caused by the roots of trees on the defendants’ properties. Two large plane trees stood in the pavement outside the house and about 12 metres from it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence, Local Government

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84608

Attorney-General v Scott: 1905

A highway authority should ‘maintain the road according to an up-to-date standard.’

Judges:

Jelf J

Citations:

[1905] 2 KB 160

Cited by:

CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244702

Price v Hilditch: 1930

The erection of a high boundary wall was established to be a nuisance. Maugham J: ‘A ground plan put in by one of the expert witnesses for the plaintiff shows the amount of floor space to which the light of the sky has access, calculated from the point of view of a table 2 feet 8 inches high, and the fact now is that there is hardly any part of the floor in the scullery from which the sky can be seen, whereas, before the erection of the wall, the sky could be seen from practically the whole of that small room.’

Judges:

Maugham J

Citations:

[1930] 1 Ch 500

Cited by:

CitedRegan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244241

Hussain v Lancaster City Council: CA 1999

The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, racial abuse, the throwing of missiles and attempts to burn down their premises. They alleged that ‘the harassment comes from a number of identifiable people both men, including teenagers and boys, and women’. Some individuals had been prosecuted, and a total number of 106 was involved.
Held: The claim failed. The acts complained of ‘did not involve the tenant’s use of the tenant’s land and therefore fell outside the scope of the tort’. A lessor was not liable to a lessee’s neighbour, who was not a lessee of the appellant, for a nuisance created by the lessee, unless the lessor authorized the nuisance either expressly or the nuisance was certain to result from the purposes for which the property was let. It would not be fair, just and reasonable to hold a Council negligent in the exercise of its discretionary statutory powers under housing legislation.

Judges:

Hirst, Thorpe and Hutchison LJJ

Citations:

[1999] 4 ALL ER 125, [2000] 1 QB 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedSmith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.230985

Thompson v Brighton Corporation: CA 1894

A manhole cover became exposed as the road surface eroded, causing injury.
Held: The Corporation were not liable.

Citations:

[1894] 1 QB 332

Cited by:

CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220842

Regina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham: QBD 1989

The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a criminal sentence. ‘On analysis, the position seem to be that proceedings are initiated by information under section 99, and that the information is then dealt with under section 94(2). It appears plain that the proceedinbgs under section 94(2) are criminal in character. The offence is the wrongdoing which leads to whatever order is in fact made; in this case, putting it generally, allowing premises to be in such a state as to be prejudicial to health.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 408

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 9492), Legal Aid Act 1974 28(5)

Citing:

FollowedRegina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc CA 1976
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94’ The offence was under s94 . .

Cited by:

AppliedHerbert v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 27-Nov-1991
An abatement order had been made against the council under the 1936 Act. The tenant appealed a finding that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to award compensation under the 1973 Act.
Held: An order under the 1973 Act required a criminal . .
AdoptedBotross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .
CitedRegina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.221517

Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough: 1972

It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity.
Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint under s99

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 260, [1972] 1 WLR 203

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.221521

Moss v Christchurch Rural District Council: 1925

Damage caused to a house may result in an award of the diminution of the value of the house only.

Citations:

[1925] 2 KB 750

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedPhilips v Ward CA 1956
The Plaintiff had relied on a negligent survey to purchase a substantial Elizabethan property and land. The report did not mention that the timbers of the house were badly affected by death watch beetle and worm so that the only course left to him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Damages

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195604

Paxhaven Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General: 1974

(New Zealand) The court considered what interest in land was required to found an action in private nuisance: ‘In my opinion, however, the matter is clear in principle. In an action for nuisance the defence of jus tertii is excluded, and it is no answer for the respondent to contend in the present case that the nuisance was committed on an area of land mistakenly included in the grant of lease to the appellant from its landlord. De facto possession is sufficient to give the appellant his remedy’

Judges:

Mahon J

Citations:

[1974] 2 NZLR 185

Citing:

AppliedFoster v Warblington Urban District Council CA 1906
A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, . .

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195591

Foster v Warblington Urban District Council: CA 1906

A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, which belonged to the lord of the manor. The plaintiff excluded everybody from the oyster beds, and nobody interfered with his occupation of the oyster beds or his removal and sale of oysters from them.
Held: He could sue the defendant Council in nuisance, notwithstanding that he could not prove his title.
Stirling LJ said: ‘I think, therefore, that, as against a private individual, the plaintiff would have a right of action, and I do not think that this case can be governed by the decision in the case of Corporation of Truro v. Rowe. There the contest arose between the owners of the foreshore and a person who claimed simply to be availing himself of a public right of fishing. Here the contest arises, in my view, between the person who is in occupation of a portion of the foreshore and a wrongdoer. Whether the plaintiff would be able to resist the claims of the owner of the foreshore, whoever he may be, or the owner of a several fishery, if such fishery exists, or of a member of the public exercising a right of fishery, if there be such a right in the present case, seems to me immaterial for the purposes of this case . .’ Since jus tertii is not a defence to an action of nuisance, a person who is in exclusive possession of land may sue even though he cannot prove title to it.

Judges:

Stirling LJ

Citations:

[1906] 1 KB 648

Cited by:

AppliedPaxhaven Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General 1974
(New Zealand) The court considered what interest in land was required to found an action in private nuisance: ‘In my opinion, however, the matter is clear in principle. In an action for nuisance the defence of jus tertii is excluded, and it is no . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
AppliedMotherwell v Motherwell 1976
(Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court) The court recognised that not only the legal owner of property could obtain an injunction, on the ground of private nuisance, to restrain persistent harassment by unwanted telephone calls to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195590

Allan v The Overseers of Liverpool: 1874

The plaintiff (or joint plaintiffs) must be enjoying or asserting exclusive possession of the land to assert a claim in nuisance.

Judges:

Blacknurn J

Citations:

(1874) LR 9 QB 180

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195596

Lowdens v Keaveney: 1903

There had been a prosecution for wilfully preventing and interrupting the free passage of persons in a public street. There had been a procession with a band playing.
Held: It was a question of fact and degree whether such a use of the street was reasonable. Gibson J said: ‘No body of men has a right to appropriate the highway and exclude other citizens from using it. The question whether user is reasonable or not is a question of fact to be determined by common sense with regard to ordinary experience ‘.
A procession is prima facie legal, differing from ‘the collection of a stationary crowd’ but a procession may become a nuisance if the right is exercised unreasonably or with reckless disregard of the rights of others. Any unreasonable or excessive use of a highway or activity on or near the highway which renders the highway less commodious to the public is enough to constitute a nuisance.

Judges:

Gibson J

Citations:

[1903] 2 IR 82

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192197

Mint v Good: CA 1951

The plaintiff was injured by the collapse of a wall which separated the highway from the forecourt of a house owned by the defendant. The house was let on a weekly tenancy. No right to enter was expressly reserved to the owner. The judge found that the wall was a nuisance, but dismissed the claim against the owner because he had not specifically reserved the right to enter the premises.
Held: Appeal allowed. A right to enter was to be implied in the circumstances, and the landlord could have made the necessary repairs.

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 517

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLaugher v Pointer 1826
The owner of a carriage hired a pair of horses for a day to draw the carriage. The owner of the horses also provided the driver, by whose negligence a horse belonging to a third party was injured. It appears that the majority of the court held that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190152

Page Motors v Epsom Borough Council: CA 9 Jul 1981

The plaintiffs were lessees of land neighbouring that of the Council. Over several years the council’s land had been occupied by gypsies who, it was said had damaged the plaintiff’s business. Though the Council had obtained a possession order in 1975, it had not enforced it for fear that the gypsies would, without alternative sites, cause problems elsewhere. The Council appealed against a finding that it had adopted the nuisance.
Held: The appeal failed. When the defendants had become aware of the damage being caused, to adjoining occupiers, they came under a duty to act, and had correctly been found liable from the date of the possession order. The obligations falling on the defendant as a public body may be wider than would fall on a private body. They were held liable without a finding of negligence.

Citations:

[1981] 80 LGR 337

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPage Motors Limited v Epsom and Ewell Borough Council QBD 1980
The plaintiff company were tenants of land adjoining land owned by the defendant council. Gypsies came to occupy the defendant’s land over several years and in increasing numbers. The Authority had obtained a possession order but had failed to . .
CitedSedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
CitedGoldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .

Cited by:

CitedLippiatt and Febry v South Gloucestershire County Council CA 31-Mar-1999
The defendant had failed to remove travellers who had encamped on its land and caused nuisances against neighbouring farmers.
Held: The court refused to strike out a claim in nuisance by neighbouring land owners. It was arguable that a land . .
CitedCocking and Another v Eacott and Another CA 9-Mar-2016
The defendant appealed against a finding of nuisance by her despite her not occupying the property from which the nuisance (barking) emanated. The occupier, her daughter was present under a license rather than a tenancy. She would not have been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190053

Midwood v Manchester Corporation: 1905

A plaintiff with standing to sue should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels.

Citations:

[1905] 2 KB 597

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190030

Anchor Brewhouse Developments -v Berkley House (Docklands) Developments: 1987

A crane which passes its boom over private land without permission creates an actionable nuisance. Damages could not be awarded so as to remove the plaintiff’s right to bring actions for trespass in the future if the trespass continued: ‘I find some difficulty with Bracewell v Appleby mainly because, as it seems to me, the judge regarded the damages he was awarding as a once and for all payment. But it was, as I see it, not within the power of the judge to produce that result. Whether or not an injunction were granted, the defendant’s use of the right of way would, after the judgment as well as before, represent trespass unless and until he were granted a right of way. The judge could not by an award of damages put the defendant in the position of a person entitled to an easement of way. So assuming, which is not clear from the case, that there had not been some agreement by the plaintiffs to treat the damages as entitling the defendant to a right of way, the defendant’s subsequent use of the private road would have constituted a continuing trespass. A succession of further actions for damages could have been brought. In those circumstances it seems to me very difficult to justify the withholding of the injunction. By withholding the injunction the court was allowing a legal wrong to continue unabated. Nonetheless Mr Moss is entitled to refer to the case as one in which an injunction was refused.’

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

(1987) 38 Build LR 82, Times 03-Apr-1987

Citing:

CitedBracewell v Appleby ChD 1975
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built.
Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the . .

Cited by:

Not supportedJaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
Recovery of damages after Refusal of Injunction
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.
CriticisedFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188778

Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd: 1918

Citations:

[1918] 34 TLR 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188019

RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council: 1985

The suggestion that the decision in Rylands v Fletcher had any place in Scots law is ‘a heresy which ought to be extirpated.’

Judges:

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Citations:

1985 SLT 214

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188014

Myatt v Teignbridge District Council: 1994

In a noise nuisance abatement case, the court held that for an Abatement Notice to be sufficient there are two steps: ‘one is you need to know what you have done wrong and, secondly, what it is you are to do to put it right.’ The case here was of keeping barking dogs, and no steps needed to be specified as to how it should be abated.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ and MacPherson J

Citations:

[1994] Env LR 78

Cited by:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184808

Millard v Wastall: 1898

The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to specify the works, but if the circumstances did not require that any works be done to abate the nuisance the Notice need not specify any such works. ‘Where any works are necessary to the abatement of a particular nuisance, and the notice calls upon the person responsible to do the necessary works, the notice must specify what those works are. But here the notice did not call upon the appellant to do any works at all; it simply required him to abstain from permitting black smoke to issue from his chimney. Nor in my judgment was the nuisance of such a nature as necessarily to require the execution of any works’.

Judges:

Day J, Lawrence J

Citations:

[1898] 1 QB 342

Cited by:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
CitedMurdoch 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. . .
CitedBudd v Colchester Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1999
A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that . .
CitedSurrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184802

McGillivray v Stephenson: 1950

The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to allow the premises to be used for pig-keeping at all’. When making an order to abate a nuisance, the court must specify what is required to be done, but on appeal the quoted words were said to add nothing to the order.

Citations:

[1950] 1 All ER 942

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Wheatley 1885
If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. . .

Cited by:

CitedSterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
CitedBudd v Colchester Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1999
A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that . .
CitedSurrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184803

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 particular locality, (ii) the trial judge rightly directed himself as to the law, and (iii) there was no reason to think that he had not applied his own directions to the facts of the case.

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC

Citations:

[1907] AC 121

Citing:

Appeal fromRushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Limited CA 1906
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedDennis 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. . .
CitedCoventry 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.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182122

McKenna and Others v British Aluminum Ltd: ChD 16 Jan 2002

Claimants began an action in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher against the respondents. They sought to strike out the claim on the basis that some of the claimants did not have a sufficient interest in the land affected. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was an extension of the law of nuisance.
Held: On an interlocutory basis it was probable that the law of nuisance did apply, requiring the claimant’s to have an interest in land, but in the light of the extension of Human Rights law to common law, the claim could not be described as having no prospect of success, and the strike out request failed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Neuberger

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBritish Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd QBD 1969
Metal foil had been blown from the defendant’s factory premises on to an electricity sub-station, which in turn brought the plaintiff’s machines to a halt.
Held: The meaning Lawton J would give to the phrase ‘direct victim’ was a person whose . .
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Human Rights

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.170174

Home Brewery v William Davis and Co (Leicester) Ltd: QBD 1986

The defendant, owner of the higher land, filled in a disused clay pit, and squeezed out water from an osier bed with the result that more water flowed onto the neighbouring plaintiff’s land causing damage. The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction.
Held: The defendant was not liable under Rylands. A defendant land owner is under no obligation to receive water from the neighbour’s land but if the use of his land by him in turning the water away is unreasonable and is resulting to damage to a higher occupier, which the plaintiff is, then a nuisance is created.
Piers Ashworth QC said: ‘an occupier is under no obligation to prevent water that has come naturally on to his land and has not been artificially retained there or artificially diverted from passing naturally to his neighbour’s land’, though ‘the common law rule is that the lower occupier has no ground of complaint and no cause of action against the higher occupier for permitting the natural, unconcentrated flow of water, whether on or under the surface, to pass from the higher to the lower land, but that at the same time the lower occupier is under no obligation to receive it. He may put up barriers, or otherwise pen it back, even though this may cause damage to a higher occupier. However, the lower occupier’s right to pen back the water is not absolute.’

Judges:

Piers Ashworth QC

Citations:

[1987] QB 339, [1987] 2 WLR 117, [1987] 1 All ER 637, Times 13-Aug-1986

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.424204

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd: 1992

The grant of planning permission does not of itself sanction or otherwise endorse an activity which is causing a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Buckley J said: ‘If a planning authority grants permission for a particular construction or use in its area it is almost certain that some local inhabitants will be prejudiced in the quiet enjoyment of their properties. Can they defeat the scheme simply by bringing an action in nuisance? If not, why not? It has been said, no doubt correctly, that planning permission is not a licence to commit nuisance and that a planning authority has no jurisdiction to authorise nuisance.’
However, in this case, the grant of planning permission had altered the character of the neighbourhood, and the statutory framework envisaged that a local planning authority would, when considering whether or not to grant planning permission, balance the interests of the community against those of individuals.

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

[1993] QB 343, [1992] 3 All ER 923, [1992] 3 WLR 449

Cited by:

CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
CitedCoventry 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 . .
CitedCoventry 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.

Nuisance, Planning

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.280165

O’Toole v Knowlsey Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 21 May 1999

Where there was expert evidence about the condition of premises, but no evidence directly suggesting a threat to the health of the tenant, the magistrates could nonetheless find that the premises were in a condition prejudicial to health, and should follow the evidence available.

Citations:

Times 21-May-1999, Gazette 03-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Nuisance

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84488

Saxby v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co: 1869

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had diverted a water course causing them damage.

Citations:

[1869] LR 4 CP 198

Cited by:

CitedBarker v Herbert CA 1911
The Defendant owned a house near the highway. A rail in a nearby fence of the area railing had been broken away by some boys, and there was therefore a gap in the railings. A child climbed through fell into an open area, injuring himself. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276818

Ough v King: CA 1967

A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor area of 156.5ft2; before the construction 100.25ft2 had been adequately lit; after the construction 80.25ft2 remained adequately lit. The adequately lit area had declined from 64.05% to 51.27%. The county court judge found that an actionable infringement had occurred.
Held: The defenedant’s appeal failed.
Danckwerts LJ referred to the ‘more demanding standards at the present time in the modern situation’.
Diplock LJ referred to the 50:50 rule as ‘a convenient rule of thumb’ in the 1920s ‘and perhaps later’.
Lord Denning MR: ‘I think the judge was entitled to have regard to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by. . . . In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may reasonably be required.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 1547

Cited by:

CitedDeakins v Hookings CC 1994
(County Court) Judge Cooke considered a claim for an alleged breach of a right of light. The well-lit area in the living room was 51% of the floor area before the development, reduced to 41% afterwards.
Held: There had been an actionable . .
CitedRegan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244242

Regina v Parlby: 1889

Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . .’

Citations:

(1889) 22 QBD 520

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 91

Cited by:

Not bindingHounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd Admn 23-May-2003
An abatement notice was served on the respondent in respect of the stink emanating from their sewage works. The magistrates decided that the workls did not constitute premises within the section, following Parlby.
Held: Parlby was not binding, . .
CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183839

Giles v Walker: 1890

Citations:

(1890) 24 QBD 656

Cited by:

QuestionedDavey v Harrow Corporation CA 1957
The Plaintiff’s house was damaged by roots penetrating from trees on adjoining land. At first instance, Sellers J found that the damage was caused by the trees, but they were not proven to be the property of the defendants. On appeal and after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183046

Transco plc and Another v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1 Mar 2001

A water pipe serving housing passed through an embankment. The pipe broke, and the escaping water led to the collapse of the bank to the expense of the applicants.
Held: The fact that an accumulation of water could give rise to damage if it escaped was not enough to create strict liability in the council responsible for the pipe. The land was being used in the ordinary course of enjoyment of the land, even though at the point of escape it was not directly from a dwelling. The pipe laid was not unusual, and the exemption from Rylands v Fletcher liability applied.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.89975

Banfai v Formula Fun Centre Inc: 13 Dec 1984

Canlii Ontario – Superior Court of Justice – The defendants operated an automobile-racing amusement ride on land adjacent to the plaintiffs’ motels. The plaintiffs and their customers complained of the noise emanating from the defendants’ ride. The plaintiffs brought an action in nuisance against the defendants seeking damages and an injunction.
Held, there should be judgment for the plaintiffs.
The noise created by the racing cars was not in keeping with the other noises in the vicinity. Generally speaking it was considerably louder and sharper than those noises, and was pervasive, intrusive, and annoying, while the other sounds of the area generally were not. In addition, the fumes and smoke from the track were completely out of keeping with such air pollution as otherwise existed in the area. The noise from the track by itself constituted an unreasonable, undue and material interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property. The complaints of the plaintiffs did not arise from any abnormal sensitivity or delicacies on their part. The noise from the track was such that a high percentage of normal persons would find the noise disturbing and unacceptable. It was a noise that the plaintiffs should not have to put up with, given the character of the area in which they conduct their business.
An owner of land who leases it knowing the tenant is going to use it for an automobile-racing amusement ride is liable for the nuisance created by the tenant. Although normally an owner is not liable for the nuisance committed by a tenant, where the nuisance arises ‘from the natural and necessary result of what the landlord authorized’ or ‘the use from which the damage or nuisance necessarily arises was plainly contemplated by the lease’, then the owner-landlord is liable.

Judges:

O’Leary J

Citations:

1984 CanLII 2198, 34 CCLT 171(HCJ), [1984] OJ No 3444

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.551696

Malzy v Eicholz: CA 1916

A tenant claimed against his landlord seeking to make him responsible for the nuisance of a co-tenant.
Held: The claim failed.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘A lessor is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment for a nuisance caused by another of his lessees because he knows that the latter is causing the nuisance and he does not himself take any steps to prevent what is being done. There must be active participation on his part to make him responsible for the nuisance. A common lessor cannot be called upon by one of his tenants to use for the benefit of that tenant all the powers he may have under agreements with other persons.’
A landlord will be liable for breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment only if the disturbance was by the landlord, his servants or agents.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘It is quite a novel doctrine to me that permission by a lessee to use demised premises for a purpose which may or may not involve or create a nuisance is a wrong act on the part of the landlord, and that the landlord can be rendered liable merely because a person does carry on that business in such a manner as to create a nuisance. It would be different, of course, if it were let for a purpose which necessarily involved a nuisance, but this letting did not necessarily involve a nuisance. That is quite plain from the plaintiff’s own evidence. He says there was no ground for complaint until the Dents came into possession.’

Judges:

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR

Citations:

[1916] 2 KB 308, (1916) LJKB 1132, (1916) LT 9, (1916) 32 TLR 506, (1916) 60 Sol Jo 511

Cited by:

CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.451201

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd: CA 1980

The exercise of the permission to develop granted by the local planning authority may have the result that the character of the neighbourhood changes and that which would previously have been a nuisance must be held no longer to be so
Cumming-Bruce LJ said: ‘The planning authority has no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance save (if at all) in so far as it has statutory power to change the character of a neighbourhood.’

Judges:

Cumming-Bruce LJ

Citations:

[1980] QB 156

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWatson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd CA 26-Jan-2009
The claimants were neighbours of the Croft motor racing circuit. They alleged nuisance in the levels of noise emanating from the site. The defendants denied nuisance saying that the interference was deemed reasonable since they operated within the . .
Appeal fromAllen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd HL 29-Jan-1980
An express statutory authority to construct an oil refinery carried with it the authority to refine. It was impossible to construct and operate the refinery upon the site without creating a nuisance. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘It is now well settled . .
CitedWheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA 19-Dec-1994
The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
CitedLawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Planning

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.280164

Cowley v Newmarket Local Board: HL 1892

No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants.
Lord Halsbury said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention.’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury

Citations:

[1892] AC 345

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
CitedAli v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.244697

Deakins v Hookings: CC 1994

(County Court) Judge Cooke considered a claim for an alleged breach of a right of light. The well-lit area in the living room was 51% of the floor area before the development, reduced to 41% afterwards.
Held: There had been an actionable interference with the plaintiff’s right to light. Referring to Ough v King, he said that the decision ‘really means not so much that one disregards the 50/50 rule, but that it is a bare minimum’ and ‘It seems to me that having regard to the authorities I ought to approach the problem on these bases: (i) In a room that is already ill-lit every bit of light is precious. (ii) Save in an extreme case it would be difficult to say that once a living room (contrast a store) fell below 50/50 that the light left was adequate. (iii) In considering whether a room where more than 50% remained well-lit regard should be had to the use to be made of the remainder and how bad, vis a vis that use, the remaining light was. (iv) The test is not merely a statistical one: test (ii) provides a pretty irreductible minimum.’

Judges:

Judge Cooke

Citations:

[1994] 1 EGLR 190

Citing:

CitedOugh v King CA 1967
A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor . .

Cited by:

CitedRegan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.244243

Tetley v Chitty: 1986

A local council had granted planning permission to a go-kart club to develop a go-kart track on land owned by the authority, and had granted the club a seven year lease to use it for that express purpose.
Held: The council were held liable in nuisance for noise arising from the use of the track. A clause in the lease requiring the tenant not to commit a nuisance did not excuse the Council landlord.

Citations:

[1986] 1 ALL ER 663

Cited by:

CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.230984

Great Central Railway v Hewlett: HL 1916

A railway company had been empowered to erect in a highway certain gateposts and in a war-time blackout a taxi-driver had run into them. The company was found not liable for the accident.
Held: The accident was caused by the post which had been legalised by the empowering act and by the elimination of light due to the exigencies of war. A mere power to maintain posts did not impose an obligation to warn the public of their existence.

Citations:

[1916] 2 AC 511

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedMoore v Lambeth Waterworks Co 1886
The defendants were found not liable when a fireplug lawfully fixed in a highway had become exposed as the road surface had worn. . .

Cited by:

CitedBybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council CA 8-Jan-2001
A culvert had been constructed taking a stream underneath the road. At the time when it came into the ownership of the local authority, it was adequate for this purpose. Later developments increased the flow, and the culvert came to become an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220841

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok: HL 1990

An offence arose under the 1936 Act when a complaint was brought by an aggrieved person. A person was entitled to make a complaint under section 94 without first serving an abatement notice.

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1990] 3 All ER 385, [1990] 1 WLR 1350

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok CA 1989
It was not necessary first to serve an abatement notice before commencing proceedings for statutory nuisance under s99. ‘. . . It is surely repugnant to common sense that in the area of legal activity a local authority should be prosecuted by one of . .
ApprovedRegina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc CA 1976
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94’ The offence was under s94 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.221519

Whalley v Lancs and Yorks Railway Co: 1884

After heavy rain, water accumulated against the defendants’ railway embankment, endangering it. The defendants cut trenches in it to allow the water flowed through, where it then went on to the land of the plaintiff, on the far side of the embankment and at a lower level. This land flooded and was injured it to a greater extent as a result. The jury found that the cutting of the trenches was reasonably necessary for the protection of the defendants’ property, and that it was not done negligently. The plaintiff argued ‘There is a great difference between a right to a landowner to protect his property against a common enemy, as was the case in Nield . . and Pagham Commissioners, and a right to pass such enemy on to the land of a neighbour.’
Held: Though the defendants had not brought the water on their land, they did not have a right to protect their property by transferring the mischief from their own land to that of the plaintiff, and that they were therefore liable: ‘if [the water] had been left alone and allowed simply to percolate through the embankment, even though all of it would have gone on to the plaintiff’s land, it would have gone without doing the injury which was done by reason of its passing through the cuttings which the defendants made. The defendants did something for the preservation of their own property which transferred the misfortune from their land to that of the plaintiff, and therefore it seems to me that they are liable.’

Citations:

(1884) 13 QBD 131

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedArscott and others v Coal Authority and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.199373

Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co: 1914

A high pressure water main laid under a city street could constitute something dangerous brought onto the defendant’s land and which involved a risk of damaging the plaintiffs’ property.

Citations:

[1914] 3 KB 772

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188039

Ballard v Tomlinson: CA 1885

The parties were neighbouring land owners, and each had a deep well. The defendant emptied the sewage from his property into his well, and this polluted also the neighbour’s well. The pollution was actionable. His behaviour appropriated the water percolating through his land and he had no right of ownership of that water even though he had pumped it. No one may use his own land so as to cause a nuisance to his neighbour, and somebody who puts filth or poisonous waste on his land must ensure it does not escape to poison his neighbour’s land.

Citations:

(1885) 29 ChD 115, (1885) 54 LJ Ch 454

Cited by:

FollowedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc: Cambridge Water Company v Hutchings and Harding Ltd CA 19-Nov-1992
The defendants operated a plant using chlorinated solvent chemicals which, over a long period had seeped through the floor of their factory and into the chalk subsoil, eventually polluting the plaintiff’s water supply some mile and half away. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188012

Ayers v Hanson, Stanley and Prince: 1912

Citations:

[1912] 56 SJ 735

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
CitedSmith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186072

Harris v James: 1876

A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts.

Citations:

[1876] 35 LT 240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHussain and Another v Lancaster City Council CA 14-May-1998
It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the . .
CitedSmith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186070

Smith v Scott: ChD 1973

It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting his tenants.
Where land is let by a landlord to a tenant the landlord is not liable for acts of nuisance permitted by his tenant unless he has specifically authorised them. Sir John Pennycuick VC said: ‘It is established beyond question that the person to be sued in nuisance is the occupier of the property from which the nuisance emanates. In general, a landlord is not liable for nuisance committed by his tenant, but to this rule there is, so far as now in point, one recognised exception, namely, that the landlord is liable if he has authorised his tenant to commit the nuisance . . This exception has in the reported cases been rigidly confined to circumstances in which the nuisance has either been expressly authorised or is certain to result from the purposes for which the property is let.’

Judges:

Sir John Pennycuick VC

Citations:

[1973] Ch 314, [1972] 3 All ER 645, [1972] 3 WLR 783

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHarris v James 1876
A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts. . .
CitedRich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
CitedAyers v Hanson, Stanley and Prince 1912
. .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Cited by:

CitedMowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
ApprovedElizabeth v Rochester City Council CA 26-Apr-1993
. .
CitedHussain and Another v Lancaster City Council CA 14-May-1998
It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the . .
CitedSouthwark 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 . .
AppliedHussain v Lancaster City Council CA 1999
The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186069

Regina v Wheatley: 1885

If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise.

Citations:

[1885] 16 QBD 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
CitedSterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
CitedMcGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
CitedBudd v Colchester Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1999
A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184801

Lyttelton Times Company Ltd v Warners Ltd: PC 1906

(New Zealand) The plaintiffs owned a hotel in Christchurch, next to the premises in which the defendants operated a printing press running 24 hours. They made an agreement under which the defendants would rebuild their premises and grant a lease of the upper floors to the plaintiffs for use an additional hotel bedrooms. Unfortunately the noise and vibrations of the press beneath caused substantial inconvenience to the occupants of the bedrooms. The plaintiffs claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants from working their press. They said that the defendants knew that they intended to use the premises as bedrooms and were under an implied obligation not to interfere with their convenient use.
Held: The plaintiffs also knew that the defendants intended to use their premises for printing.
Loreburn LC said: ‘When it is a question of what shall be implied from the contract, it is proper to ascertain what in fact was the purpose, or what were the purposes, to which both intended the land to be put, and having found that, both should be held to all that was implied in this common intention . . [If] it be true that neither has done or asks to do anything which was not contemplated by both, neither can have any right against the other.’ and ‘Ought the fact that one of the parties was the grantor and the other the grantee of a lease to dominate the decision of the case? If A lets a plot to B, he may not act so as to frustrate the purpose for which in the contemplation of both parties the land was hired . . The fact that one lets and one hires does not create any presumption in favour of either in construing an expressed contract. It was argued that the common intention was that the plaintiffs should have reasonably quiet bedrooms. If it was so, that was only one half of the common intention. The other half was that the defendants should keep on printing. One cannot bisect the intention and enforce one half of it when the effect of doing so would be to frustrate the other half.’ and
‘In this case their Lordships think that both parties agreed upon a building scheme with the intention that the building should be used for bedrooms and also for a printing house according to a design agreed upon. Both parties believed these two uses could co-exist without clashing, and that was why both of them accepted the scheme. Neither would have embarked upon it if he had not thought his intended enjoyment of the building would be permitted, and both intended that the other should enjoy the building in the way contemplated. They were mistaken in their anticipation. But if it be true that neither has done or asks to do anything which was not contemplated by both, neither can have any right against the other.’

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC

Citations:

[1907] AC 476

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGoldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouritis CA 29-Jan-2003
The tenant claimed damages form his landlord for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The landlord was obliged to repair the building, and in his doing so the tenant suffered losses through interruptions. The question was whether the Landlord . .
CitedSouthwark 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182774

Nottingham City District Council v Newton: QBD 1974

The tenant had obtained an order finding his house to be a nuisance, and requiring it to be made habitable. The local authority had planned a slum clearance order, and was awaiting confirmation of the order.
Held: Once the magistrates found the nuisance they were obliged to make the order, but they should have looked at the surrounding circumstances to see that it was appropriayte to delay the required work to after the decision on the order.

Judges:

Lord Widgey CJ, Ashowrth Phillips JJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 923 DC, [1974] 2 All ER 760

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSalford City Council v McNally QBD 19-Dec-1974
cw Public Health – Nuisance – Complaint by tenant – Local authority’s compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area – Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182325

Johnson v BJW Property Developments Ltd: 2002

Judges:

Thornton QC J

Citations:

[2002] 3 All ER 574, [2002] EWHC 1131 (TCC)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CriticisedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512177

Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors: 1923

Rubbish was tipped on land belonging to a canal company and on adjoining land belonging to mine owners. The rubbish on the mine owners’ land was found to be on fire, and the canal company feared that the fire might spread to their own land. Having called on the mine owners to extinguish the fire, the canal company entered the mine owners’ land (by agreement) and put out the fire. The court was asked as to whether the mine owners were liable to contribute to the cost.
Held: The mine owners had no duty to prevent the spread of the fire: ‘where a fire occurs through no fault of the landowner, without his knowledge, and, as in this case, on matter brought on his land without his knowledge and against his will, he is not responsible for the spreading of such a fire to the adjoining land, but the neighbour is entitled to go upon his land and prevent the fire from spreading.’

Judges:

Bailhache J

Citations:

[1924] 1 KB 341

Statutes:

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromJob Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors CA 1924
Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512182

Jones v Festiniog Railway: CEC 1867

The defendant railway company ran steam locomotives on its railway. Although it had taken all reasonable precautions against the emission of sparks from the engine, nevertheless sparks from the engine set the plaintiff’s haystack alight and burned down his barn.
Held: The claim succeeded. The thing of the dangerous nature that the railway company had brought onto its land was the locomotive engine with the deliberately kindled fire.
Blackburn J said: ‘The general rule of common law is correctly given in Fletcher v Rylands, that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous nature on his own land, he must keep it in at his own peril; and is liable for the consequences if it escapes and does injury to his neighbour. Here the defendants were using a locomotive engine with no express parliamentary powers making lawful that use, and they are therefore at common law bound to keep the engines from doing injury, and if the sparks escape and cause damage, the defendants are liable for the consequences, though no actual negligence be shewn on their part.’
Lush J said: ‘I can see nothing in this statute to licence the company to use locomotive engines. In the absence of this licence the company are left to their liabilities at common law: that is, if they use a highly dangerous machine, they must do so at the peril of the consequences if it cause injury to others.’

Judges:

Blackburn and Lush JJ

Citations:

(1867-68) LR 3 QB 733

Statutes:

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512179

Mason v Levy Autoparts of England Ltd: 1967

McKenna J said that there were not three separate routes to liability at law for the escape of fire from premises to a neighbour’s property, but one. A householder was liable for the escape of his fire (ignis suus): no additional danger was needed to be proved. The liability was based on a custom of the realm and on no other principle. If the case was brought otherwise than on the custom of the realm (i.e. by action on the case) then negligence had to be proved. McKenna J said: ‘There were not three heads of liability at common law but only one. A person from whose land a fire escaped was held liable to his neighbour unless he could prove that it had started or spread by the act of a stranger or of God. Filliter’s case had given a special meaning to the words ‘accidental fire’ used in the statute, holding that they did not include fires due to negligence, but covered only cases of ‘a fire produced by mere chance, or incapable of being traced to any cause.’ But it does not follow, because that meaning may be given to ‘accidental,’ that the statute does not cover cases of the Rylands v Fletcher kind where the occupier is held liable for the escape though no fault is proved against him. In such cases the fire may be ‘produced by mere chance’ or may be ‘incapable of being traced to any cause.’ Bankes LJ was making a distinction unknown to the common law, between ‘the mere escape of fire’ (which was his first head) and its escape under Rylands v Fletcher conditions (which was his third), and was imputing an intention to the legislature of exempting from liability in the former case and not in the latter.’

Judges:

McKenna J

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 530

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

OverruledStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512176

1582 (Anon): 1582

The defendant fired a gun at a fowl. In so doing he set fire to his own and his neighbour’s house. The action was brought by way of action on the case.
Held: If the plaintiff ‘had counted on the custom of the realm as in [Beaulieu v Finglam] the action had not been well brought’. Although the court did not give reasons for this view, it was presumably because the fire was not deliberately kindled and was never within the defendant’s control

Citations:

(1582) Cro Eliz 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512157

Malzy v Eichholz: CA 1916

A landlord is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment in respect of a nuisance caused by another of his lessees, even if he knows the lessee is causing the nuisance and takes no steps to prevent it. To be liable for nuisances committed by his tenant, it is not enough for them to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it, he must either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘It is quite a novel doctrine to me that permission by a lessee to use demised premises for a purpose which may or may not involve or create a nuisance is a wrong act on the part of the landlord, and that the landlord can be rendered liable merely because a person does carry on that business in such a manner as to create a nuisance. It would be different, of course, if it were let for a purpose which necessarily involved a nuisance, but this letting did not necessarily involve a nuisance. That is quite plain from the plaintiff’s own evidence. He says there was no ground for complaint until the Dents came into possession.’

Judges:

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR

Citations:

[1916] 2 KB 308

Cited by:

CitedSouthwark 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.442752