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:

Cited – Director 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

The court emphasised that interference with the reception of TV signals was part of the law of nuisance.

Judges:

Robins J

Citations:

(1978) 84 DLR 3d 221

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190045

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:

Cited – Hunter 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

Citations:

[1936] 2 All ER 1677

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189998

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:

Cited – Bracewell 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 supported – Jaggard 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.
Criticised – Feakins 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

Citations:

[1918] 34 TLR 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands 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:

Cited – Transco 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

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:

Cited – Kirklees 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

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:

Cited – 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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sterling 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 . .
Cited – Budd 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 . .
Cited – Surrey 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 . .
Cited – Kirklees 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

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:

Cited – Kirklees 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 . .
Cited – Murdoch and Another v Glacier Metal Company Limited CA 19-Jan-1998
Excess noise by nearby factory above World Health Organisation level was not an actionable nuisance. It was a question for each factual situation. An allowance had to be made for the character of the neighbourhood. . .
Cited – Budd 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 . .
Cited – Surrey 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

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 from – Rushmer 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:

Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182122

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:

Cited – Rylands 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

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

Citations:

[1869] LR 4 CP 198

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276818

Citations:

(1890) 24 QBD 656

Cited by:

Questioned – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183046

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:

Cited – Rylands 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 from – Transco 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

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:

Approved – 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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220841

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:

Cited – Arscott 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

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:

Cited – Rylands 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:

Cited – Transco 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

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:

Cited – Kirklees 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 . .
Cited – Sterling 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Budd 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

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:

Cited – Salford 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

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:

Cited – Stannard (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

Judges:

Thornton QC J

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Criticised – Stannard (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

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:

Cited – Stannard (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

The occupier of a house in a street in Mayfair had many years previously converted the ground floor into a stable. A new occupier altered the location of the stable so that the noise of the horses became an annoyance to the next-door neighbour and prevented him from letting his house as lodgings.
Held: Lord Selborne LC said: ‘In making out a case of nuisance of this character, there are always two things to be considered, the right of the Plaintiff and the right of the Defendant. If the houses adjoining each other are so built that from the commencement of their existence it is manifest that each adjoining inhabitant was intended to enjoy his own property for the ordinary purposes for which it and all the different parts of it were constructed, then so long as the house is so used there is nothing that can be regarded in law as a nuisance which the other party has a right to prevent. But, on the other hand, if either party turns his house, or any portion of it, to unusual purposes in such a manner as to produce a substantial injury to his neighbour, it appears to me that that is not according to principle or authority a reasonable use of his own property; and his neighbour, shewing substantial injury, is entitled to protection. I do not regard it as a reasonable or as a usual manner of using the front portion of a dwelling house in such a street as Green Street, that it should be turned into stables for horses; and, if it is so used, then the proprietor is bound to take care that it is so used as not to be a substantial annoyance, detrimental to the comfort and to the value of the neighbours’ property.’

Judges:

Lord Selborne LC

Citations:

(1873) LR 8 Ch D 467

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.442751

Judges:

Sir George Jessel MR

Citations:

(1875-6) LR 2 ChD 692, (1876) 2 Ch D 692

Cited by:

Cited – Lambert and Others v Barratt Homes Ltd and Another CA 16-Jun-2010
The claimants had bought houses from the first defendants, who in turn had bought the land from Rochdale, the second defendants. In preparing the land for construction the first defendants were said to have negligently filled in a drainage culvert . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.417079

The defendant had without justification laid a pipe across a pavement and the plaintiff tripped over it and was injured.
Held: The defendant was liable in nuisance. Devlin J said, as to the pipe: ‘No doubt it is a comparatively harmless sort of nuisance in that most members of the public may be expected to see the pipe, and it will not cause them any grave inconvenience, but that does not prevent it being a nuisance in law’, and as to nuisance: ‘I think the law still is that any person who actually creates a nuisance is liable for it and for the consequences which flow from it whether he is negligent or not.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1954] Lloyds LR 440

Citing:

Cited – Maitland v Raisbeck CA 1944
Lord Greene MR said: ‘Every person . . has a right to use the highway and, if something happens to him which in fact causes an obstruction to the highway but is in no way referable to his fault, it is quite impossible, in my view, to say that ipso . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dymond 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: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.265959

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 place affects only the person or persons occupying the premises where the nuisance is said to have taken place. A nuisance coming within the meaning of the Public Health Act 1976 must be either private or public nuisance as understood by common law.’

Judges:

Watkins J

Citations:

[1976] 1 WLR 543

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936

Citing:

Cited – Salford 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.427199

‘if my friend come and lie in my house, and set my neighbour’s house on fire, the action lieth against me.’

Citations:

[1675] EngR 433, (1675) 2 Br and Gold 146, (1675) 123 ER 864

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Stannard (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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.404558

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 course of his employment, though without particular directions.

Citations:

[1792] EngR 2684, (1792) 1 Ld Raym 264, (1792) 91 ER 1072 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Turberville 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Turberville 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.360896

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 improvide custodivit iqnem suum in his field, that it burnt the plaintiff’s heath in his field. After verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved in arrest of judgment hat such an action on the case lies only for a negligent keeping his fire in his house ; and that in this case he should have his
action specially, if he be damaged, and not count on the general custom for negligence.

Judges:

Turton J, Holtby CJ

Citations:

[1796] EngR 2164, (1796) 12 Mod 152, (1796) 88 ER 1228

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Turberville 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 Also – Turberville 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.351869

Whether the protection given by the statutes 6 Ann. c. 31, and 14 G 3, c, 78, toa party in whose house or on whose estate ‘a fire shall accidentally begin’ extends to fires occasioned by the negligence of the owner or his servants, or, whether it is confined to fires arising from pure accident in the limited sense of the word.
Qaere?
A petition of right does not lie to recover compensation from the Crown for damage to the property of an individual, occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown.
The reigning Sovereign is not liable to make compesation for damage to the property of an individual occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown in a preceding reign ; nor, semble, even where such damage has been done in his own reign.

Citations:

[1843] EngR 359, (1842-1843) 1 Ph 306, (1843) 41 ER 648

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Stannard (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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.306053

Case against a railway company for so carelessly and improperly managing and directing an engine on their railway by their servants, that sparks flew from the engine upon a stack of beans standing in an adjoining field, belonging to the plaintiff, whereby the stack was destroyed. A case stated for the opinion of the court, under the statute, alleged that the engines used upon the railway were such as were usually employed on railways, for the purpose of propelling the trains and carriages thereon ; and that the engine, from which the sparks that set fire to the stack in question flew, was used at the time in the ordinary manner, and for purposes authorised by the act of parliament incorporating the company.-Held,that the facts stated were not sufficient to enable the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendants, so as to justify the directing of the entry of a verdict for the plaintiff; but that they did not shew such an absence of negligence as to warrant the directing of the entry of a nonsuit ; and the special case was withdrawn in order that the parties might go on to trial.
Tindal CJ said: ‘It is contended on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff should be nonsuited; but I am not prepared to say that the fact of the engine emitting sparks may not amount to negligence. On the other hand I cannot say that a verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff. I think that the special case should be withdrawn, and that the parties should go on to trial. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must either shew some carelessness by the defendants, or lay facts before the jury from which it may be inferred.’

Citations:

[1841] EngR 1095, (1841) 3 Man and G 515, (1841) 133 ER 1246

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stannard (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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.309273

Lord Denman CJ considered a 1707 Act restricting liability for fire damage: ‘The Act contemplates the probability of fires in cities and towns arising from three causes, the want of water, the imperfection of party walls, and the negligence of servants. The Act provided some means for supplying these material defects: but the third section was directed against the moral one, the carelessness or negligence of servants, which (it observes) often causes fires: and it imposes on the servant by whose negligence the fire may have been occasioned a fine of 100l., to be distributed among the sufferers at the discretion of the churchwardens, or imprisonment for eighteen months in case of nonpayment. . . The most usual cause of fires was assumed to be the negligence of servants: and the enactment might operate to induce habits of caution in that important class. The same statute, in the sixth section, enacts that, after a day named, no action shall be maintained against any person in whose house or chamber any fire shall accidentally begin, nor shall any recompence be made by such person for any damage suffered or occasioned thereby.’

Judges:

Lord Denman CJ

Citations:

[1847] EngR 999, (1847) 11 QB 347, (1847) 116 ER 506

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Stannard (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 . .
Cited – Musgrove v Pandelis CA 2-Jan-1919
The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms.
Held: The Act did not provide a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.301615

Section 86 of the 1774 Act applies to the whole country.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 436, (1846) 15 M and W 244, (1846) 153 ER 840

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Fires Prevention Metropolis Act 1774

Cited by:

Cited – Stannard (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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.302331

Citations:

[1864] EngR 809 (B), (1864) 4 B and S 616

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 6-Nov-1863
. .

Cited by:

See Also – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865
The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees.
Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282523

Citations:

[1864] EngR 808 (A), (1864) 4 B and S 616

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 6-Nov-1863
. .

Cited by:

See Also – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865
The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees.
Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282522

The court was asked whether the removal of four or five inches of snow from the tramway in Acton High Street was within the duty to maintain the highway imposed by section 28 of the Act of 1870.
Held: It was not.

Citations:

[1909] 1 KB 68

Statutes:

Tramways Act 1870 28

Cited by:

Cited – Goodes 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: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244701

On the wording of section 94(2), the relevant date for determining whether the alleged nuisance exists is the date of the hearing before the magistrates. Accordingly, if it has by that time been abated, no offence is committed.

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1325

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 94(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.221531

The defendants raised their land, so that the rain collected and penetrated an adjoining wall and ran into the plaintiff’s land, causing substantial damage.
Held: The heap or mound erected on the defendants’ land had to be considered as ‘an artificial work’. the rainwater would not have percolated ‘but for’ the rubble.
Cotton LJ said: ‘Every occupier of land is entitled to the reasonable enjoyment thereof. This is a natural right of property, and it is well established that an occupier of land may protect himself by action against any one who allows any filth or any other noxious thing produced by him on his own land to interfere with this enjoyment. We are further of opinion that . . if any one by artificial erection on his own land causes water, even though arising from natural rain-fall only, to pass into his neighbour’s land, and thus substantially to interfere with his enjoyment, he will be liable to an action at the suit of him who is so injured.’

Judges:

Cotton LJ

Citations:

(1878) 3 CPD 168

Cited by:

Cited – Arscott 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 . .
Cited – Lambert and Others v Barratt Homes Ltd and Another CA 16-Jun-2010
The claimants had bought houses from the first defendants, who in turn had bought the land from Rochdale, the second defendants. In preparing the land for construction the first defendants were said to have negligently filled in a drainage culvert . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199372

A music teacher gave lessons at home and from time to time held noisy parties. He complained of nuisance when his neighbour retaliated by blowing whistles, banging trays and trying to disturb the music.
Held: The defendant’s actions were deliberate and unreasonable.
The motives of the party whose actions are alleged to constitute an actionable nuisance are relevant to the question whether there is such a nuisance.

Citations:

[1893] 1 Ch 316

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Bramwell and Others v Robinson ChD 21-Oct-2016
Interference with right of way
Neighbour dispute as to right of way.
Held: The defendant had failed to establish the ‘swing space’ he asserted, but otherwise the claimant had in several ways behaved unreasonably and interfered with the use of the right and harrassed the . .
Cited – Owers v Bailey ChD 2006
Nicholas Strauss QC dealt with the interference on a right of way by the erection of a gate, summarising the law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.195606

The plaintiffs farmed silver foxes for their fur. During the breeding season, they were nervous, but the neighbour defendant farmer deliberately encouraged his son to fire guns near the pens in order to disturb the breeding and cause economic loss.
Held: The action was a nuisance even though it took place on his own land.

Citations:

[1936] 1 All ER 825, [1936] 2 KB 468

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunter 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 . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited – Bramwell and Others v Robinson ChD 21-Oct-2016
Interference with right of way
Neighbour dispute as to right of way.
Held: The defendant had failed to establish the ‘swing space’ he asserted, but otherwise the claimant had in several ways behaved unreasonably and interfered with the use of the right and harrassed the . .
Cited – Owers v Bailey ChD 2006
Nicholas Strauss QC dealt with the interference on a right of way by the erection of a gate, summarising the law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.189973

The plaintiffs were trustees of a church. The defendant built an electricity sub station next door. The plaintiffs sought an injunction, saying that the humming sound emitted could be heard in the church.
Held: The special requirements for quiet required in a church did not impose any higher standard from neighbours as regards the special use made of land. The plaintiffs had not established that the noise was a sufficient interference to support an injunction.

Citations:

(1908) 98 LT 718, (1908) 72 JP 225, (1908) 24 TLR 414

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Nuisance

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.189968

The defendant occupied premises above those of the plaintiff. Whilst the property was unattended, the water closet leaked, damaging the plaintiff’s goods on the ground floor. The waste pipe had been blocked by paper and there were other defects. None of the defects were patent, and the defendant had not been negligent.
Held: There was no obligation to ensure that water did not escape, and the defendants were not liable.

Judges:

Lord Cairns LC

Citations:

[1872] 26 LT 966, (1872) LR 7 QB 661

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Rylands 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:

Cited – Transco 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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188010

Water had leaked from a main and disturbed paving stones in the highway. The water board had had no knowledge of or reason to suspect any danger to the public at the place in question.
Held: Affirming the Court of Appeal, since the board was acting under statutory authority in maintaining the main, they were not liable in the absence of negligence.

Citations:

[1948] 2 All ER 834

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands 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 . .
Applied – Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co 1894
A water main belonging to a waterworks company, which had been authorized by Parliament to lay the main, burst. There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Transco 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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188040

The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. The defendants occupied the top floor. A rat gnawed through a box in which rain water was collected from the roof, causing a leak into the plaintiff’s property, causing damage. No negligence was shown.
Held: The defendant was not liable. He had not brought water to the place from which it escaped into the plaintiff’s premises. A rat gnawing a hole in a wooden gutter box counted as an Act of God.
Martin B said: ‘Now, I think that one who takes a floor in a house must be held to take the premises as they are, and cannot complain that the house was not constructed differently.’

Judges:

Kelly CB, Martin B

Citations:

[1871] LR 6 Exch 217, [1871] 40 LJ Ex 120, [1871] 19 WR 723

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Rylands 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:

Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188020

An order had been made to abate a nuisance caused by loud noise from a juke box. The abatement notice as served required that the nuisance be abated ‘and the level of noise in [the premises] shall not exceed 70dB(A)’.
Held: The words quoted were deleted as void for uncertainty, but the general requirement to abate the nuisance stood, and was not challenged.

Citations:

[1976] 1 WLR 1101

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey 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 . .
Cited – Kirklees 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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184804