Category: Nuisance

Miller v Jackson: CA 6 Apr 1977

The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of cricket balls landing in their gardens. The defendant appealed.
Held: A factor to be taken into account was that the plaintiffs had purchased their properties knowing of the club. That could constitute the exceptional circumstances allowing the court to use its discretion not to award an injunction.
Lord Denning MR, dissenting, said: ‘In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short . . [y]et now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore . . [h]e has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket.
This newcomer has built . . a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket.’ If the injunction were upheld, cricket would cease in the village and ‘the young men will turn to other things . .’ The public interest in the playing of cricket should prevail over the individual interests of the householders, and, instead of the injunction, he awarded andpound;400 for past and future inconvenience. He went on to answer with a resounding no his own rhetorical (in both senses of the word) question whether this was ‘all to be rendered useless to them by the thoughtless and selfish act of an estate developer in building right up to the edge of it?’
Geoffrey Lane LJ (with whom Cumming-Bruce LJ agreed) concluded that the claim in nuisance was made out. He accepted, albeit with some regret, that it was not for the Court of Appeal ‘to alter a rule which has stood for so long’, namely ‘that it is no answer to a claim in nuisance for the defendant to show that the plaintiff brought the trouble on his own head by building or coming to live in a house so close to the defendant’s premises that he would inevitably be affected by the defendant’s activities, where no one had been affected previously’

Geoffrey Lane, Cumming Bruce LJJ, Denning MR
[1977] 1 QB 966, [1977] 3 All ER 338, [1977] EWCA Civ 6
Bailii
Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (Lord Cairns’ Act)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Imperial 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 – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .
Cited – Sturges v Bridgman CA 1879
The character of the neighbourhood in which the plaintiff lives should, for the law of nuisance, include established features: ‘whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the . .
Cited – Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
Cited – Browne v Flower 1911
With regard to the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, Parker J said: ‘to constitute a breach of such a covenant there must be some physical interference with the enjoyment of the demised premises, and that a mere interference with the comfort . .
Cited – Sedleigh-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 . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Latimer v AEC Limited HL 25-Jun-1953
The Appellant had recovered damages for injuries which he alleged had been the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in their statutory duty to maintain one of the gangways in their works in an efficient state. He slipped on a factory . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
Cited – Letang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964
The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .
Cited – Goldman 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), World Wildlife Fund Incorporated v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Incorporated – Intervener Jakks Pacific Llc CA 27-Mar-2003
. .
Doubted – Kennaway v Thompson CA 30-Apr-1980
The plaintiff’s property adjoined the defendant’s boating lake over which the defendant had, over several years, come to run more and more motor boat sports events. The trial judge had found that the noise created by the racing was an actionable . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Cited – Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others CA 26-Oct-2010
Child sexual abuse was alleged by 150 claimants against staff members of a community home with teachers supplied by the defendants. The court had asked whether they had vicarious liability for the acts of their staff, and now whether the board of . .
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.

Land, Nuisance, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.180311

Goldman 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 burn itself out. The fire spread to neighbouring property.
Held: An occupier of land is under a general duty of care in relation to hazards, whether natural or man-made, occurring on his land to remove or reduce such hazards to his neighbour. The existence of the duty is based on the knowledge of the hazard, the ability to foresee the consequences of not checking or removing it and the ability to abate it by taking reasonable measures. Risks such as the spread of fire are not ones which, without more, call for the imposition of any risk based liability; liability if any must be based upon some antecedent creation of risk or some subsequent fault.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘the tort of nuisance, uncertain in its boundary, may comprise a wide variety of situations, in some of which negligence plays no part, in others of which it is decisive’. And ‘one may say in general terms that the existence of a duty must be based upon a hazard, ability to foresee the consequences of not checking or not removing it, and the ability to abate it.’
The occupier here was in breach of his duty of care for failing to extinguish a fire which had started by natural causes. The defendant was found to be negligent because he chose not to put the fire out, but to let it burn itself out instead. This erroneous decision allowed a wind to revive the fire which then spread to the plaintiff’s property.
In the case of fire there was no difference between a fire that started from natural causes and one that had been started by human agency. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘Their Lordships would first observe, with regard to the suggested distinction, that it is well designed to introduce confusion into the law. As regards many hazardous conditions arising on land, it is impossible to determine how they arose – particularly is this the case as regards fires. If they are caused by human agency, the agent, unless detected in flagrante delicto, is hardly likely to confess his fault. And is the occupier, when faced with the initial stages of a fire, to ask himself whether the fire is accidental or man-made before he can decide upon his duty? Is the neighbour whose property is damaged bound to prove the human origin of the fire? The proposition involves that if he cannot do so, however irresponsibly the occupier has acted, he must fail. But the distinction is not only inconvenient, it lacks, in their Lordships’ view, any logical foundation.
Within the class of situations in which the occupier is himself without responsibility for the origin of the fire, one may ask in vain what relevant difference there is between a fire caused by a human agency, such as a trespasser, and one caused by act of God or nature. A difference in degree – as to the potency of the agency – one can see but none that is in principle relevant to the occupier’s duty to act. It was suggested as a logical basis for the distinction that in the case of a hazard originating in an act of man, an occupier who fails to deal with it can be said to be using his land in a manner detrimental to his neighbour and so to be within the classical field of responsibility in nuisance, whereas this cannot be said when the hazard originates without human action so long at least as the occupier merely abstains. The fallacy of this argument is that, as already explained, the basis of the occupier’s liability lies not in the use of his land: in the absence of ‘adoption’ there is no such use; but in the neglect of action in the face of something which may damage his neighbour. To this, the suggested distinction is irrelevant.’

Wilberforce, Perason, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Reid LL
[1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12
Bailii, Bailii
Australia
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 – Thames Water Utilities Limited v Marcic CA 7-Feb-2002
The claimant owned land over which sewage and other water had spilled from the appellant’s sewage works. His claim having been dismissed under Rylands v Fletcher, and there being no statutory means of obtaining compensation, the judge was asked to . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Leakey 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 – 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 – Delaware 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 . .
Cited – Marcic 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 . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council CA 24-Mar-2004
The claimant (aged 6) sought damages after being hurt when other children playing on a building site threw stones from the site, hitting him as he passed by.
Held: The case raised questions of law and it was incumbent on the judge to provide . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1986
A council owned a two-storey building divided into four flats, one of which was occupied by the plaintiff. It failed to prevent frozen water pipes in the roof of the building (which was outside the demise to the plaintiff) from bursting and flooding . .
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 . .
Cited – LMS 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 . .
Cited – Lambert and Others v Barratt Homes Ltd (Manchester Division) and Another QBD 17-Feb-2009
The claimant sought damages in nuisance and negligence saying that in constructing a new housing estate, they had altered the land in such a way as to lead to the repeated flooding of their home.
Held: Both the developer and the council were . .
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 – 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 . .
Determinative – 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 – Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind and Another TCC 11-Jun-2014
A train crash was caused when an ash tree fell from the defendant’s land across the railway line. The company sought damages from the land-owner.
Held: The land-owner’s duty extended no further than the carrying out of periodic informal or . .
Cited – Network 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 . .
Cited – Miller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179685

Malone v Laskey: CA 1907

A company’s manager resided in a house as its licensee. His wife was injured when a bracket fell from a wall in the house. She claimed damages from the defendants in nuisance and negligence. The claim in nuisance alleged that the fall of the bracket had been caused by vibrations from an engine operating on the defendants’ adjoining premises.
Held: Her claim in nuisance failed.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: ‘The main question, however, on this part of the case is whether the plaintiff can maintain this action on the ground of vibration causing the damage complained of, and in my opinion the plaintiff has no cause of action upon that ground. Many cases were cited in the course of the argument in which it had been held that actions for nuisance could be maintained where a person’s rights of property had been affected by the nuisance, but no authority was cited, nor in my opinion can any principle of law be formulated, to the effect that a person who has no interest in property, no right of occupation in the proper sense of the term, can maintain an action for a nuisance arising from the vibration caused by the working of an engine in an adjoining house. On that point, therefore, I think that the plaintiff fails, and that she has no cause of action in respect of the alleged nuisance.’ Fletcher Moulton LJ: ‘So far as the plaintiff’s case is based upon nuisance, the contention on her behalf appears to me to be supported by no authority. Witherby and Co. were the tenants and occupiers of these premises, and if the premises had been injured or the enjoyment of them interfered with by the vibration it was open to them to take any one of three courses–they might come to the courts for an injunction to stop the vibration, or they might simply have tolerated it, or they might have authorised its continuance either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. A person in the position of the plaintiff, who was in the premises as a mere licensee, had no right to dictate to Witherby and Co. which course they should take, and they seem to have voluntarily permitted the vibration to continue. Indeed, if it is permissible to conjecture, I have very little doubt that the proximity of the engine was by no means an unmixed evil to them, for it may well have affected the amount of rent paid by them for the premises. But, whether that be so or not, it was a matter entirely for the tenant, and a person who is merely present in the house cannot complain of a nuisance which has in it no element of a public nuisance.’

Sir Gorell Barnes P, Fletcher Moulton LJ
[1907] 2 KB 141
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 . .
Applied – Metropolitan Properties v Jones 1939
The defendant had been tenant of one of the plaintiffs’ flats but had assigned his lease. The assignee disappeared and the tenant, who as original lessee remained liable for the rent, went back into possession. In response to an action for rent, he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.190018

Rylands v Fletcher: CEC 1865

Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by shewing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour’s reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour’s privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour’s alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequences. And upon authority, this we think is established to be the law whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.’

Blackburn J
(1866) LR 1 Ex 265, [1865] 3 HandC 774, [1865] EngR 436, (1865) 3 H and C 774, (1865) 159 ER 737
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – 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 – LMS 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 . .
Cited – Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England 1967
The defendants had a store of machinery in inflammable packings, together with a quantity of petroleum, acetylene and paints. A neighbour claimed from fire damage.
Held: They were liable for the damage when fire broke out and escaped to the . .
Applied – Cockburn v Smith 1924
The owner of a block of flats let one to the tenant, but kept the roof and guttering in his own possession and control. The guttering became defective and the landlord failed to remedy it after notice. Rainwater escaped and caused damage to the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Corke ChD 1933
The defendant whose land had been occupied by caravan dwellers for profit was liable in public nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and was restrained by injunction. Offending acts had been committed by the caravan dwellers, who were . .
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 – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Cited – Miller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188009

Watson and Others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd: QBD 16 Apr 2008

The claimants were neighbours to a car racing circuit. They complained of noise nuisance.
Held: Simon J said: ‘The Claimants’ objections are not to the car and motor-bicycle racing fixtures which amount to about 20 (N1 and N2) events each year (over approximately 45-50 days); but to the noise from the circuit’s other activities, in particular Vehicle Testing Days and Track Days (when members of the public drive vehicles at speed all day) at noise levels which reach N2-N4 levels.’
(1) a planning authority (including a minister and an inspector) have no jurisdiction to authorise a nuisance, though they may have the power to permit a change in the character of a neighbourhood and (2) the question whether a permissive planning permission has changed the character of a neighbourhood so as to defeat what would otherwise constitute a claim in nuisance is one of fact and degree.

Simon J
[2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] Env LR 43, (2008) 152(18) SJLB 29, [2008] 3 All ER 1171, [2008] 2 EGLR 149
Bailii
England and Wales

Nuisance, Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.375092

Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd: CA 11 Aug 2011

The claimant appealed against dismissal of its claim in nuisance. The parties occupied adjoining units on an industrial estate. The defendant’s business generated odour which, the wall between them being permeable, passed into the claimant’s office environment.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge had correctly summarised and applied the relevant law. In particular he had not misapplied the decision in Southwark v Mills. The root of the problem lay not with the defendant’s activities, which fell within the user covenant, but with the wall. The findings were open to him, and an appellate court could not second guess factual conclusions drawn by the judge after a site visit.

Mummery, Munby LJJ, Hedley J
[2011] EWCA Civ 987, [2011] Env LR 34, [2011] NPC 94
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .

Cited by:
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: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442716

Regan 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 infringement of a right to light it cannot be said that refusing an injunction and leaving the claimant with an award of damages in lieu is an exceptional course . . having regard in particular to the guidance given in the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Kine v. Jolly and Fishenden, that the onus is plainly on a claimant to persuade the court that he should not be left to a remedy in damages. The damage to the claimant’s land was relatively small, it could be adequately compensated in money, and it would be oppressive to award an injunction.

Stephen Smith QC DJ
[2006] EWHC 1941 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd HL 2-May-1904
The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction.
Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeill Associates 1986
The claim was for interference with the plaintiff’s right to light.
Held: There is a need to approach infringements of easements of light with flexibility. The plaintiff’s subjective views as to the loss of light were not to the point. When . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Fishenden v Higgs and Hill Ltd CA 1935
An injunction had been refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of an easement of light and awarded damages in lieu, even though the damages would be substantial because it had been shown that the plaintiff was plainly ‘only wanting . .
Cited – Kine v Jolly CA 1905
The court refused an injunction in respect of an infringement of the right to light to a dwelling house, restricting the plaintiff to a remedy in damages. Cozens-Hardy LJ: ‘I think it is impossible to doubt that the tendency of the speeches in the . .
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Cited – 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.
Cited – Wrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
Cited – Pugh v Howells CA 1984
The court ordered a building to be demolished were the development had been speeded up and completed over a bank holiday weekend in order to present the plaintiff with a fait-accompli, having been warned that the proposed works would infringe a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Turner and Another v Pryce and others ChD 9-Jan-2008
The claimants asserted that they had the benefit of restrictive covenants under a building scheme to prevent the defendants erecting more houses in their neighbouring garden. The defendants pointed to alleged breaches of the same scheme by the . .
Cited – Watson 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 from – Regan v Paul Properties Ltd and others CA 26-Oct-2006
The court considered the appropriate remedy after a finding of infringement of a right to light, and in particular: ‘whether the proper remedy for infringement in this case is damages for nuisance, as ordered by the court below, or whether a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Land

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.244231

Green v The Right Honourable Lord Somerleyton and others: CA 28 Feb 2003

The parties owned areas of marshland divided by a road. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendants had no right to allow floodwater to escape over his land from what he said was an artificial reservoir on the defendant’s land. The claimant’s claim under Rylands had been rejected, but he appealed his claim in nuisance. The defendants sought a declaration of an easement of drainage. The land had previously been in one ownership. Various deeds had provided for mutual rights and arbitration. Changes in water flow had lead to dykes becoming silted up.
Held: If a Leakey duty arose on the defendants, it had been discharged. Also the earlier deeds had done enough to resreve implied easements of drainage.

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Schiemann Sir Christopher Staughton
[2003] EWCA Civ 198, Gazette 13-Mar-2003
Bailii
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 – Honey v Sliversprings Bleaching and Dyeing Co Ltd ChD 1992
. .
Cited – Leakey 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 – Thomas and Evans Ltd v Mid-Rhondda Co-operative Society CA 1941
The defendants set out to re-construct a wall along the side of the river to protect their land and an adjacent highway from flooding. In doing so they pulled down the wall, leaving gaps which they intended to fill by a new building. The river . .
Cited – L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises.
Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they . .
Cited – Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman HL 1915
Whether an easement may be created by implication depends on the circumstances under which it is said to have been made. The law implies a grant of such easements as may be necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties to a grant . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lambert and Others v Barratt Homes Ltd (Manchester Division) and Another QBD 17-Feb-2009
The claimant sought damages in nuisance and negligence saying that in constructing a new housing estate, they had altered the land in such a way as to lead to the repeated flooding of their home.
Held: Both the developer and the council were . .
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.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179560

Hale v Jennings Bros: 1938

The owner of the fairground was held to be responsible for a chair-o-plane which became detached from the roundabout, because the act of the man ‘fooling about on this device’ was: ‘just the kind of behaviour which ought to have been anticipated as being a likely act with a percentage of users of the apparatus.’
The plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Scott LJ
[1938] 1 All ER 579
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:
Disapproved – 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, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188034

Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd: HL 1946

The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had been no escape from the land which was a pre-requisite to liability under Rylands -v- Fletcher. No claim in nuisance or under the rule can arise if the events complained of take place wholly on the land of a single occupier. There must be an escape from one tenement to another. ‘escape . . means escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.’ and ‘For if a man commits a legal nuisance it is no answer to his injured neighbour that he took the utmost care not to commit it. There the liability is strict, and there he alone has a lawful claim who has suffered an invasion of some proprietary or other interest in land.’

Lord Simonds, Viscount Simon, Lord MacMillan, Lord Porter, Lord Uthwatt
[1947] AC 156, [1946] 2 All ER 471, [1947] LJR 39, [1946] 175 LT 413, [1946] 62 TLR 646, [1946] 91 Sol J Jo 54, [1946] UKHL 2
Bailii
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 – May v Burdett 1846
The court considered the liability of the owner for a bite by his pet monkey. . .
Cited – Besozzi v Harris 1858
The court considered the owner’s liability for injury caused by a bear on a chain on the defendant’s premises. . .
Cited – 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 – Ellis v Loftus Iron Co 1874
The pasturing of cattle must be one of the most ordinary uses of land, and strict liability for damage done by cattle enclosed on one man’s land if they escape thence into the land of another, is one of the most ancient propositions of our law. It . .

Cited by:
Doubted – Davis and Another v Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others CA 23-May-2002
The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work . .
Applied – Cambridge 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 . .
Applied – 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 – 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 – LMS 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 . .
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. . .
Cited – Leakey 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 – 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

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.183101

Regan v Paul Properties Ltd and others: CA 26 Oct 2006

The court considered the appropriate remedy after a finding of infringement of a right to light, and in particular: ‘whether the proper remedy for infringement in this case is damages for nuisance, as ordered by the court below, or whether a mandatory injunction should be granted requiring part of a building in the course of construction to be pulled down. ‘
The court rejected the trial judge’s view that, where the defendant’s building interfered with the claimant’s right to light, the onus was on the claimant to show that damages were not an adequate remedy.
Mummery LJ said: ‘Shelfer is the best known case. It is a decision of the Court of Appeal. It has never been overruled and it is binding on this court. The cause of action was nuisance, as in this case, though in the form of noise and vibration rather than interference with a right of light.
36 Shelfer has, for over a century, been the leading case on the power of the court to award damages instead of an injunction. It is authority for the following propositions which I derive from the judgments of Lord Halsbury and Lindley and A L Smith LJJ. (1) A claimant is prima facie entitled to an injunction against a person committing a wrongful act, such as continuing nuisance, which invades the claimant’s legal right. (2) The wrongdoer is not entitled to ask the court to sanction his wrongdoing by purchasing the claimant’s rights on payment of damages assessed by the court. (3) The court has jurisdiction to award damages instead of an injunction, even in cases of a continuing nuisance; but the jurisdiction does not mean that the court is ‘a tribunal for legalising wrongful acts’ by a defendant, who is able and willing to pay damages: per Lindley LJ at pp 315 and 316. (4) The judicial discretion to award damages in lieu should pay attention to well settled principles and should not be exercised to deprive a claimant of his prima facie right ‘except under very special circumstances’: per Lindley LJ at pp 315 and 316. (5) Although it is not possible to specify all the circumstances relevant to the exercise of the discretion or to lay down rules for its exercise, the judgments indicated that it was relevant to consider the following factors: whether the injury to the claimant’s legal rights was small; whether it could be adequately compensated by a small money payment; whether it would be oppressive to grant an injunction; whether the claimant had shown that he only wanted money; whether the conduct of the claimant rendered it unjust to grant him more than pecuniary relief; and whether there were any other circumstances which justified the refusal of an injunction: see A L Smith at pp 322 and 323, and Lindley LJ at p 317.
In my judgment, none of the above propositions has been overruled by later decisions of any higher court or of this court.’

Mummery, Tuckey, Wilson LJJ
[2007] Ch 135, [2006] EWCA Civ 1391, [2007] 4 All ER 48
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regan 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 . .
Cited – Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .

Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney ChD 3-Sep-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that its property was free of a suggested right of light in favour of its neighbour . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270197

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 under the rule in Rylands, concluding that the appellant had collected the tyres on his land, and that the fire had escaped.
Held: The court considered whether the rule in Rylands and Fletcher could be extended to include liability for escaping fire.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Ward LJ said: ‘ although the scope of Rylands v Fletcher has been narrowed each time the highest courts have considered it, the Recorder in fact extended it beyond any previous expression of the principle. He imposed strict liability where it had not existed before.’
. . and ‘the law is as stated in Goldman v Hargrave at least as regards fires that have not been deliberately kindled. An occupier of land will not be liable to his neighbour for a fire that begins accidentally unless he is negligent in failing to prevent its spread. The general test of negligence may entail the taking of special precautions where the use in question involves the accumulation or storage of inflammable or readily combustible materials. But that is a question of fact to be decided on a case by case basis.’
. . and ‘ in the light of Transco plc v Stockport MBC the extension of the principle in Mason v Levy Autoparts of England Ltd was, in my judgment, a wrong turning in the law. No extension of the principle in Rylands v Fletcher can be justified. I would therefore overrule Mason v Levy Autoparts of England Ltd’

Ward, Etherton, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694
Bailii
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
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 – Donoghue (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 – Rickards v Lothian PC 11-Feb-1913
The claim arose because the outflow from a wash-basin on the top floor of premises was maliciously blocked and the tap left running, with the result that damage was caused to stock on a floor below.
Held: The provision of a domestic water . .
Cited – Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd HL 1921
At a time of war, a process was invented where picric acid was manufactured from dinitrophenol (DNP) and nitrate of soda. DNP had been used mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and was a stable compound which did not explode easily. It was not in . .
Cited – Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd 1994
(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . .
Cited – Beaulieu v Finglam 1401
Markham J considered the possibility of liability for the escape of fire to damage a neighbour’s property and said: ‘A man is held to answer for the act of his servant or of his guest in such a case; for if my servant or my guest puts a candle by a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – 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] . .
Cited – Crogate v Morris 1675
‘if my friend come and lie in my house, and set my neighbour’s house on fire, the action lieth against me.’ . .
Cited – Black v The Christchurch Finance Company Limited PC 16-Dec-1893
(New Zealand) Lord Shand, said: ‘The lighting of a fire on open bush land, where it may readily spread to adjoining property and cause serious damage, is an operation necessarily attended with great danger, and a proprietor who executes such an . .
Cited – H and N Emanuel Ltd v Greater London Council CA 1971
Notwithstanding a clause in the contract that no rubbish was to be burnt on the site, it was known to the Council that the contractor it had engaged to demolish and remove prefabricated bungalows made a practice of burning off small pieces of wood . .
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 – Richards v Easto 21-Feb-1846
Section 86 of the 1774 Act applies to the whole country. . .
Cited – Filliter v Phippard 9-Dec-1847
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 . .
Cited – Viscount Canterbury v The Attorney-General 11-Feb-1843
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 . .
Cited – Vaughan 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 . .
Cited – Aldridge v The Great Western Railway Company 19-Nov-1841
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, . .
Cited – Piggot v The Eastern Counties Railway Company 2-Jun-1846
Sparks from the engine of a passing mail train set fire to the plaintiff’s cart lodge. The claim against the railway company was that they ‘so carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully managed and conducted their said steam-carriage and steam-engine’ . .
Cited – Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 20-Nov-1858
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was burnt by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done everything that was . .
Cited – Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1869
Negligence requires duty to injured
Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of . .
Cited – Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1870
Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, . .
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .
Wrong in part – 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 . .
Cited – Musgrove v Pandelis 1919
Mr Musgrove rented rooms above a domestic garage, in which Mr Pandelis kept a car. Mr Pandelis sent his chauffeur, Mr Coumis, to clean the car. Mr Coumis had to move the car within the garage. For that purpose he went to the bonnet and turned on the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Powell v Fall 1879
The defendant drove a steam powered traction engine on the highway. Sparks from the engine set fire to the plaintiff’s haystack. The court was asked: ‘whether the owner of a locomotive engine propelled by steam along a public highway using a fire . .
Cited – Powell v Fall CA 1880
The defendant had caused a fire when sparks flew from his steam traction engine as he drove along the highway. He now appealed against a judgemnt that he was liable. He conceded that an action lay at common law.
Held: The decision was upheld. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Job 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 . .
Overruled – 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 . .
Criticised – Johnson v BJW Property Developments Ltd 2002
. .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist ECJ 6-Nov-2003
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided . .
Cited – Sedleigh-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 . .
Approved – E Hobbs (Farms) Limited v The Baxenden Chemical Co Limited 1992
A fire had started in Hobbs’ barn when a spark from a grinding machine fell onto combustible material/debris below the machine. The fire spread into and destroyed Gerber’s adjacent hanger. Hobbs alleged that the fire spread was due to the action of . .
Cited – Job 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 – Williams v Owen QBD 1955
Mr Williams left his car overnight in the hotel garage. A fire broke out and destroyed his car.
Held: The strict liability of an innkeeper was limited to loss of his guest’s goods rather than to their destruction.
As to section 86 of the . .
Cited – Balfour v Barty-King 1957
A fire started as the result of the negligent use of a blow torch by an independent contractor, damaging the plaintiff’s property. The use of fire had, therefore, been deliberate. The plaintiff argued that ‘If negligence be shown, it matters not . .
Cited – LMS 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 . .
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 . .
Determinative – Goldman 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 . .
Cited – Leakey 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, Torts – Other, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.464655

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 her enjoyment of her land.
Held: The interference with TV reception by an adjoining development is not capable of being nuisance to land in law. An action in private nuisance will only lie at the suit of a person who has a right to the land affected. When assessing damages for nuisance, loss of amenity was an appropriate measure where no capital loss was established and loss of use was an additional head. Nuisance is a tort directed at protection of interests in land only.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The general principle is that at common law anyone may build whatever he likes upon his land. If the effect is to interfere with the light, air or view of his neighbour, that is his misfortune. The owner’s right to build can be restrained only by covenant or the acquisition (by grant or prescription) of an easement of light or air for the benefit of windows or apertures on adjoining land . . In the absence of agreement, therefore, the English common law allows the rights of a landlord to build as he pleases to be restricted only in carefully limited cases and then only after the period of prescription has elapsed’. And ‘In the case of nuisances ‘productive of sensible personal discomfort’ the action is not for causing discomfort to the person, but as in the case of the first category, for causing injury to the land. True it is that the land has not suffered ‘sensible’ injury, but its utility has been diminished by the existence of the nuisance. It is for the unlawful threat to the utility of his land that the possessor and occupier is entitled to an injunction and it is for the diminution in such utility that he is entitled to compensation.’
Lord Goff said: ‘As a general rule, a man is entitled to build on his own land, though nowadays this right is inevitably subject to our system of planning controls. Moreover, as a general rule, a man’s right to build on his land is not restricted by the fact that the presence of the building may of itself interfere with his neighbour’s enjoyment of his land . . [H]is neighbour generally cannot complain of the presence of the building, though this may seriously detract from the enjoyment of his land.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘Private nuisances are of three kinds. They are (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour’s land; (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour’s land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of his land’.
Lord Hope of Craighead said that only certain kinds of rights over the use of land by others are known to law: ‘The presumption also affects the kinds of easement which the law will recognise. When the easements are negative in character – where they restrain the owners’ freedom in the occupation and use of his property – they belong to certain well known categories. As they represent an anomaly in the law because they restrict the owners’ freedom, the law takes care not to extend them beyond the categories which are well known to the law. It is one thing if what one is concerned with is a restriction which has been constituted by express grant or by agreement. Some elasticity in the recognised categories may be permitted in such a case, as the owner has agreed to restrict his own freedom. But it is another matter if what is being suggested is the acquisition of an easement by prescription. Where the easement is of a purely negative character, requiring no action to be taken by the other proprietor and effecting no change on the owner’s property which might reveal its existence, it is important to keep to the recognised categories. A very strong case would require to be made out if they were to be extended. I do not think that that has been demonstrated in the present case.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 14-May-1997, Times 25-Apr-1997, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd; Same v London Docklands Development Board CA 13-Oct-1995
A release of dust over neighbouring properties can be a nuisance but not a blocking of TV reception signals. No action lay in private nuisance for interference with television caused by the mere presence of a building. ‘A substantial link between . .
Cited – Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Board ChD 1965
The case concerned electrical interference with TV signals caused by the activities of the defendant Electricity Board.
Held: Such interference did not constitute a legal nuisance, because it was interference with a purely recreational . .
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 – Bland v Moseley 1587
The court distinguished the elements of an easement of light and an easement of air. In the absence of an easement, a building may be erected so as to restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour’s land. . .
Cited – Aldred’s Case 1619
An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Doughty 1752
As to any right of prospect, a building erected so as to spoil a view cannot at common law be a nuisance for that reason.
Lord Hardwicke LC said: ‘I know no general rule of common law, which warrants that, or says, that building so as to stop . .
Cited – Chastey v Ackland CA 1895
The two properties were in a terrace backing onto an area popularly used as a urinal. The defendant raised his wall by sixteen feet causing a stagnation of the air in the yard, making the other houses less healthy. The court at first instance . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood 14-Dec-1983
High Court – New Zealand. The glass roof of a verandah which deflected the sun’s rays so that a dazzling glare was thrown on to neighbouring buildings was held, prima facie, to create a nuisance. Hardie Boys J said: ‘To the extent that this is an . .
Cited – Dalton v Henry Angus and Co HL 14-Jun-1881
The court explained the doctrine of lost modern grant. Where there has been more than 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment of an easement, and that enjoyment has the necessary qualities to fulfil the requirements of prescription, then unless, for some . .
Cited – Sedleigh-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 . .
Cited – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
Cited – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
Cited – 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, . .
Cited – Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation v Wolstanton Ltd 1947
The tort of nuisance is directed against the plaintiff’s enjoyment of his rights over land, and an action of private nuisance will usually be brought by the person in actual possession of the land affected, either as the freeholder or tenant of the . .
Cited – Malone v Laskey CA 1907
A company’s manager resided in a house as its licensee. His wife was injured when a bracket fell from a wall in the house. She claimed damages from the defendants in nuisance and negligence. The claim in nuisance alleged that the fall of the bracket . .
Cited – 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 . .
Mentioned – Cunard v Antifyre Ltd 1933
Talbot J defined private nuisance as an interference by owners or occupiers of property with the use or enjoyment of neighbouring property. . .
Overruled – Khorasandjian v Bush CA 16-Feb-1993
The plaintiff was an eighteen year old girl who had had a friendship with the defendant, aged 28. The friendship broke down and the plaintiff said she would have no more to do with him, but the defendant did not accept this. There were many . .
Doubted – Motherwell 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 . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Asher v Whitlock CEC 3-Nov-1865
Possession of land is in itself a good title against anyone who cannot show a prior and therefore better right to possession. A possession which is wrongful against the true owner can found an action for trespass or nuisance against someone else. A . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth CA 7-Jan-1994
In 1986, the defendant, wanted a swimming pool adjoining his house. He contracted with the plaintiffs. The contract price for the pool, with certain extras, was 17,797.40 pounds including VAT. The depth of the pool was to be 6 ft 6 in at the deep . .
Cited – Leakey 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 – Bone v Seale CA 1975
The plaintiffs were the owners and occupiers of two adjoining properties. They claimed damages for nuisance by smell. The judge awarded over 6,000 pounds to each of the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal reduced the sum to 1,000 pounds.
Held: the . .
Cited – Billings (AC) and Sons Ltd v Riden HL 1957
A building contractor may assume a duty of care to a visitor, though the contractor was not viewed as the occupier, the occupier being separately liable to the injured plaintiff. However, ‘if the Plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was . .
Doubted – Metropolitan Properties v Jones 1939
The defendant had been tenant of one of the plaintiffs’ flats but had assigned his lease. The assignee disappeared and the tenant, who as original lessee remained liable for the rent, went back into possession. In response to an action for rent, he . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .
Cited – Janvier v Sweeney 1919
During the First World War Mlle Janvier lived as a paid companion in a house in Mayfair and corresponded with her German lover who was interned as an enemy alien on the Isle of Man. Sweeney was a private detective who wanted secretly to obtain some . .
Cited – Bury v Pope 1587
The owner of land was held entitled to erect a house against his neighbour’s windows even though they had enjoyed light for over 30 years. ‘And lastly, the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, . .
Cited – Lopez Ostra v Spain ECHR 9-Dec-1994
A waste treatment plant was built close to the applicant’s home in an urban location and the plant released fumes and smells which caused health problems to local residents.
Held: A duty exists to take reasonable and appropriate measures to . .
Cited – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – Webb v Bird 1861
The use of prescription for the acquisition of an an easement of light is anomalous. The owner of the land over which the easement is claimed can do nothing to prevent the installation of windows in a neighbour’s house. . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Bryant v Lefever 1879
A right of uninterrupted but undefined flow of air to a chimney is not capable of becoming an easement acquired by prescription. . .
Cited – Paterson v Gas Light and Coke Co. 1896
. .
Cited – Arrondelle v United Kingdom ECHR 1982
Article 8 of the Convention is aimed, in part, at protecting the home and are construed to give protection against nuisances including aircraft noise. . .
Cited – Midwood v Manchester Corporation 1905
A plaintiff with standing to sue should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Tao 1977
. .
Cited – Jacobs v London County Council HL 1950
The House considered the operation of the doctrine of precedent: ‘there is in my opinion no justification for regarding as obiter dictum a reason given by a judge for his decision because he has given another reason also. If it were a proper test to . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd 1961
A plaintiff who has standing to sue, including a member of the household of the landowner, should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels.
Veale J started from the position of the ‘ordinary man’ in considering whether an . .
Cited – Christie v Davey 1893
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 . .
Cited – Wheeler 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 . .
Cited – Harvie v Robertson 1903
The pursuer sought an interdict against the defender from carrying on the operation of lime-burning on his land: ‘the question whether a proprietor complaining of such injury has a title and interest to interfere does not depend exclusively upon . .
Cited – Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd CA 1992
Neighbours complained at the development of a new commercial port on the site of a disused naval dockyard. Heavy vehicle traffic at night had a seriously deleterious effect on the comfort of local residents.
Held: Although a planning consent . .
Cited – Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation v Wolstanton Ltd 1947
The tort of nuisance is directed against the plaintiff’s enjoyment of his rights over land, and an action of private nuisance will usually be brought by the person in actual possession of the land affected, either as the freeholder or tenant of the . .
Cited – Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett 1936
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. . .
At first Instance – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd QBD 20-Dec-1994
The plaintiff made two claims arising from the construction works involvd in the Canary Wharf development. First that the building now prevented her TV signal reception, and second that the works had released substantial volumes of dust so as to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge CA 10-Oct-2001
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a . .
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 – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
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 – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
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 – Corby Group v Corby Borough Council CA 8-May-2008
The claimants sought damages alleging that land owned by the defendant was so contaminated as to have caused their children to be born with deformities. The authority appealed against refusal of the court to strike out the claim in response to their . .
Cited – Watson 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 . .
Cited – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Cited – Dennis and Another v Davies (B20 (Ch)) ChD 21-Nov-2008
The claimants sought to enforce a restrictive covenant to restrain a neighbour building an extension.
Held: A building could be a source of annoyance and therefore a breach of the particular covenant. The requirement for the builder’s . .
Cited – Davies v Dennis and Others CA 22-Oct-2009
The land owner appealed against an injunction given to prevent him carrying out building works which the neighbours said would breach a restrictive covenant. The covenants negatived a building scheme.
Held: The appeal failed. Covenants of the . .
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 – Lawrence 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. . .
Cited – Thornhill and Others v Nationwide Metal Recycling Ltd and Another CA 29-Jul-2011
The appellants challenged a decision that the defendants had ceased to be committing an actionable nuisance after erecting a sound barrier between their metal scrap yard and the claimants’ properties.
Held: The judge had correcly applied the . .
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 . .
Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another ChD 7-Dec-2015
Claim by time share owners for easements over neighbouring land. The easements were for various sporting rights and facilities.
Held: The Claimants were entitled to appropriate declaratory relief confirming that they have the rights they claim . .
Cited – Network 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.

Torts – Other, Land, Nuisance, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.81542

Coventry 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 claimants, and second as to the suspension of the injunctions whilst the property to be protected was not occupied.
Held: The injunction should be suspended. The landlords should be discharged from liability, but wth no order for costs in their favour. Further orders as to the costs scheme required the involvement of the Attorney-General etc and a final hearing was adjourned.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
[2014] UKSC 46, [2014] WLR(D) 332, UKSC 2012/0076, [2014] PTSR 1014, [2014] 4 All ER 517, [2015] 1 AC 106, [2014] 3 WLR 555, [2014] HLR 42, [2014] 5 Costs LO 759, [2014] 2 P andCR 19
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, SC Summary Video
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions and Another v Lawrence and Others CA 27-Feb-2012
The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding . .
Principal judgment – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger CA 1981
The defendant owned a Victorian house which had been converted vertically into apartments. He let them to tenants under agreements containing the usual covenant of quiet enjoyment. One of the upper storey apartments had made use of the flat roof of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Chartered Trust Plc v Davies CA 31-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – Simmons v Castle CA 10-Oct-2012
The court amended its earlier judgment as to the overall increase in the level of damages to be awarded in personal injury cases.
The system enacted in the 1999 Act remains in force in relation to litigation brought pursuant to conditional fee . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .

Cited by:
Adjourned from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.535436

Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another: CA 29 Jan 2009

The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance and related causes.
Held: Damages in nuisance are for injury to the property and not to the sensibilities of the occupiers. That is so as much for the case of the transitory nuisance interfering with comfort and enjoyment of the land as it is for the case of the nuisance which occasions permanent injury to the land and to its capital value, or other pecuniary loss. However ‘the actual impact upon the occupiers of the land, although not formally the measure of common law damages for loss of amenity, will in practice be relevant to the assessment of such damages in many cases, including such as the present where a family home is in question and no physical injury to the property, loss of capital value, loss of rent or other pecuniary damage, arises.’ The court could not say whether the child of the family might be entitled to an award. That would have to be established at trial.
Waller LJ said: ‘If the house in question was available to be let during the period of the nuisance, it may be that there would be direct market evidence of loss of rental value. Otherwise, it is perhaps inevitable that the assessment of damages for loss of amenity will involve a considerable degree of imprecision. But if estate agents are to assist in placing a value on the relevant intangibles, whether by calculating the reduction in letting value of the property for the period of the nuisance or in some other way, we would expect them in practice to take into account, for the purposes of their assessment, the actual experience of the persons in occupation of the property during the relevant period. As Lord Hoffmann observed, the measure of damages for loss of amenity will be affected by the size and commodiousness of the property. If the nature of the property is that of a family home and the property is occupied in practice by a family of the size for which it is suited, the experience of the members of that family is likely to be the best evidence available of how amenity has been affected in practical terms, upon which the financial assessment of diminution of amenity value must depend.’

Waller LJ, Richards LJ, Hughes LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 28, [2007] HRLR 45, 116 Con LR 135, [2007] CILL 2518, [2007] BLR 465, [2007] TCLR 7, [2008] Env LR 21, [2007] NPC 102, [2008] 2 All ER 362
Bailii, Times
Water Industry Act 1991 18
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave – Dobson and others v Thames Utilities CA 18-Mar-2008
Claim for orders re management of sewerage works – smell and mosquitoes. Leave to appeal granted. . .
Appeal from – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another TCC 24-Aug-2007
The several claimants sought damages from the defendants for nuisance from mosquitoes which collected at the defendant’s sewage works. . .
Cited – Marcic 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 . .
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 – Fadeyeva v Russia ECHR 9-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and . .
Cited – Bone v Seale CA 1975
The plaintiffs were the owners and occupiers of two adjoining properties. They claimed damages for nuisance by smell. The judge awarded over 6,000 pounds to each of the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal reduced the sum to 1,000 pounds.
Held: the . .
Cited – Hunt v Severs HL 7-Sep-1994
The tortfeasor, a member of the claimant’s family provided her with voluntary nursing care after the injury. The equivalent cost of that care, was recoverable, but would be held on trust for the carer. The underlying rationale of English Law is to . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
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 – Lopez Ostra v Spain ECHR 9-Dec-1994
A waste treatment plant was built close to the applicant’s home in an urban location and the plant released fumes and smells which caused health problems to local residents.
Held: A duty exists to take reasonable and appropriate measures to . .

Cited by:
Applied – Lawrence 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, Utilities, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.280240

Adams v Ursell: ChD 17 Jan 1913

A house owner complained that his neighbur’s fish and chip shop was emitting odours which impinged on the enjoyment of his house.
Held: Such odours might amount to a sufficient interference to constitute a nuisance.

Swinfen Eady J
[1913] 1 Ch 269
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Walter v Selfe 1851
The burning of bricks on he defendant’s land was a nuisance to the plaintiff’s neighbouring house. An injunction was granted. The court should ask: ‘ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.186354

Calvert v Gardiner and Others: QBD 10 May 2002

The claimant sought damages for nuisance in the form of the loud ringing of church bells. The claim was against the local church and also against the bishop.
Held: The ring of bells might in law amount to a nuisance, but the action against the Bishop was not going to succeed and was struck out. The management of the church bell ringing was specifically within the remit of the local church. The vicar had a degree of security of tenure, and the bishop had no disciplinary rights or other form of control which might make him potentially liable.

Mr Justice Burton
Times 22-Jul-2002

Ecclesiastical, Nuisance

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.174420

St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts: 1928

Acton J
(1928) 140 LT 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – St Anne’s Well Brewery Co v Roberts CA 2-Jan-1928
Scrutton LJ said: ‘Under those circumstances it appears to me that the cardinal thing which would have to be proved to establish any liability against anybody would be, namely, knowledge of the defect which ultimately resulted in the fall of the . .
Cited – Coope and Others v Ward and Another CA 28-Jan-2015
The court was asked: ‘ (i) whether the Appellants, owed to the Respondents a ‘measured duty of care’ which, in certain circumstances, may arise as between adjoining landowners in respect of a hazard arising on their land without their fault; (ii) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.542056

Gardner and Gardner v Davis and others: CA 15 Jul 1998

Three properties were dependent upon drainage through the plaintiff’s land. The soakaway system would not support increased usage. The appellant challenged an order denying an easement.
Held: The drainage easement was to be read according to the express words, construed within the context of the time when the easement was granted, and so that reasonable use was limited to the capacity of the drainage installed. Overflows of effluent onto the servient owner’s land from increased use were a nuisance and capable of restraint by injunction.
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice May
Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1213
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ingram v Morecroft 1863
‘… if a man enter into a covenant to do a particular thing, however absurd, the covenantee is entitled to have the covenant performed; …’ . .
Cited – Wood v Saunders 1875
The dominant land at the time of sale contained a house ‘adapted for about twenty-five inmates, and only part of the drainage of the house rain into the ditch or moat’ on land retained by the vendor. The purchaser subsequently extended the house, . .
Cited – Jones v Pritchard ChD 6-Feb-1908
The grant of an easement ordinarily carries with it the grant of such ancillary rights as are reasonably necessary to its exercise or enjoyment. However the grant of a right of way over a driveway cannot place on the servient owner the obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.144692

Rainham Chemical Works Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd: HL 1921

At a time of war, a process was invented where picric acid was manufactured from dinitrophenol (DNP) and nitrate of soda. DNP had been used mainly for the manufacture of dyes, and was a stable compound which did not explode easily. It was not in itself dangerous. Nitrate of soda was not an explosive but wood or bags impregnated with moist nitrate of soda will, when dry, burn fiercely if ignited. A hot flame is needed to ignite it and when ignited, large quantities of DNP become a dangerous explosive. While neither DNP nor nitrate of soda was, in itself, dangerous, they became a source of danger if stored in quantities and in close proximity to one another. It was proved that that was the cause of a massive explosion which caused damage to neighbouring property. On the evidence the manufacture of picric acid from DNP and nitrate of soda might or might not be dangerous in its character, but in that case it was being manufactured under dangerous conditions, and those dangerous conditions caused the accident. Accordingly the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher became applicable. It was not, per Lord Carson, ‘seriously argued’ that the defendant company was not liable for the damages caused by the explosion. Before Scrutton LJ, the trial judge, it was admitted that the person in possession of the DNP was liable under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher for the consequences of the explosion.
Held: The disputed question was whether responsibility lay at the door of the defendant company or the personal defendants who had a licence from the inventor to manufacture the required picric acid.
Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Now, the foundation of the action was a claim based upon the familiar doctrine established by the case of Fletcher v. Rylands, which depends upon this – that even apart from negligence the use of land by one person in an exceptional manner that causes damage to another, and not necessarily an adjacent owner, is actionable: . .In the present case the use complained of was that for the purpose of making munitions, which was certainly not the common and ordinary use of the land, two substances, namely, nitrate of soda and dinitrophenol, were stored in close proximity, with the result that on a fire breaking out they exploded with terrific violence. It may be accepted that it was not known to either of the defendants that this danger existed, but that in itself affords no excuse, and the result is that the plaintiffs’ cause of action is well founded and the only matter for determination is against whom the action should be brought.’ . . and ‘If the company was really trading independently on its own account, the fact that it was directed by Messrs Feldman and Partridge would not render them responsible for its tortious acts unless, indeed, they were acts expressly directed by them. If a company is formed for the express purpose of doing a wrongful act or if, when formed, those in control expressly direct that a wrongful thing be done, the individuals as well as the company are responsible for the consequences, but there is no evidence in the present case to establish liability under either of these heads.’
Lord Buckmaster
[1921] 2 AC 465, [1921] All ER 48
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 . .
Cited – MCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .
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 – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.188016

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.182121

Rapier v London Tramways Co: CA 16 May 1893

The defendants were a Tramway company who were empowered by their Act to lay down and construct two lines of Tramway according to deposited plans, together with the works and conveniences connected therewith. The Act gave no compulsory powers for taking lands and made no special mention of building stables. The defendants constructed the lines, and built some large blocks of stables near the plaintiff’s house for the horses employed in drawing the cars. The plaintiff complained of the smell caused by the stables, and brought an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants from using the stables so as to cause a nuisance.
Held: (affirming the decision of Kekewich J) that although the horses were necessary for the working of the tramways, the company were not justified by the statutory powers in using the stables so as to be a nuisance to their neighbours, and that it was no sufficient defence to say that they had taken all reasonable care to prevent it.
If the noise and the smell from the stabling for large numbers of horses (used to pull trams) is intolerable in a densely-populated residential neighbourhood, it is no defence that the defendant has used all reasonable care to minimise the annoyance.
[1893] 2 Ch 588, [1893] UKLawRpCh 77
Commonlii
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.188043

Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of The Tate Gallery: CA 12 Feb 2020

The claimants asserted that the construction of the Tate Modern Gallery allowed its visitors
Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lewison, Lady Justice Rose DBE
[2020] EWCA Civ 104, [2020] 2 WLR 1081
Bailii, Bailii Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of The Tate Gallery ChD 12-Feb-2019
The claimant owners of glass walled apartments complained that the erection of a new walkway by the defendant which gave members of the public views into the claimants’ living spaces was a nuisance and an infringement of their human rights to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.648153

Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of The Tate Gallery: ChD 12 Feb 2019

The claimant owners of glass walled apartments complained that the erection of a new walkway by the defendant which gave members of the public views into the claimants’ living spaces was a nuisance and an infringement of their human rights to privacy and otherwise.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish either nuisance or an infringement of their human rights.
On the direct claim in privacy under section 6 of the HRA 1998 and Article 8 of the Convention, the Judge concluded that the Tate does not have, or in this case was not exercising, functions of a public nature within the HRA 1998. Accordingly, the direct privacy claim failed, and the Judge said that he did not have to consider how Article 8 would have operated had the Tate been a public authority.
If there was a nuisance, it would have to be the kind of nuisance caused by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of their land, and the first issue was whether that type of nuisance is capable of including invasion of privacy. Had it been necessary to do so, he would have concluded that the tort of nuisance, absent statute, would probably have been capable, as a matter of principle, of protecting privacy rights, at least in a domestic home. If there were any doubt about that, then that doubt had been removed by the HRA 1998 and Article 8 of the Convention; and that, if it did not do so before the HRA 1998, since that Act the law of nuisance ought to be, and is, capable of protecting privacy rights from overlooking in an appropriate case.
The locality was a part of urban South London used for a mixture of residential, cultural, tourist and commercial purposes but the significant factor was that it is an inner city urban environment, with a significant amount of tourist activity. An occupier in that environment can expect rather less privacy than perhaps a rural occupier might, and that anyone who lives in an inner city can expect to live quite cheek by jowl with neighbours.
There was nothing unreasonable about the use of the Tate’s land per se, in its context. He took into account the restrictions imposed by the Tate on the use of the viewing gallery both in respect of times for viewing and the other steps mentioned above.
By incorporating the winter gardens into the living accommodation, the owners and occupiers of the flats had created their own additional sensitivity to the inward gaze, and the claimants were, therefore, occupying a particularly sensitive property which they were operating in a way which had increased the sensitivity. There was a parallel with nuisance cases in which the claim had failed because the claimant’s user which had been adversely affected by the claimant’s activity was a particularly sensitive one and that an ordinary use would not have been adversely affected.
The claimants might have taken several steps to mitigate the intrusion.
Mann J
[2019] EWHC 246 (Ch), [2019] 2 WLR 1335, [2019] WLR(D) 91, [2019] Ch 369
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scott v LGBT Foundation Ltd QBD 3-Mar-2020
Disclosure of risk of self harm made no claim
The claimant complained that the respondent support group had disclosed to his doctor that fact that they had assessed him as being at significant risk of suicide or other substantial self-harm, and that it was at that time unable to provide Mr . .
Appeal from – Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of The Tate Gallery CA 12-Feb-2020
The claimants asserted that the construction of the Tate Modern Gallery allowed its visitors . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.633424

Bamford v Turnley: 5 Nov 1860

An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance according to the ordinary rule of law; and this whatever he locality may be where he act is done; and where, on trial of such an action, it appears that the act complained of was done on the land of the defendant, the jury cannot properly be asked whether the causing of the nuisance was a reasonable use by the defendant of his own land.
Bramwell B said: ‘There must be, then, some principle on which such cases must be excepted. It seems to me that that principle may be deduced from the character of these cases, and is this, viz: that those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action . . There is an obvious necessity for such a principle as I have mentioned. It is as much for the advantage of one owner as of another; for the very nuisance the one complains of, as the result of the ordinary use of his neighbour’s land, he himself will create in the ordinary use of his own, and the reciprocal nuisances are of a comparatively trifling character. The convenience of such a rule may be indicated by calling it a rule of give and take, live and let live.’
Erle CJ, Williams and Keating JJ, Bramwell and Wilde BB
[1860] EngR 1082, (1860) 3 B and S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 1860
Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.285921

Bamford v Turnley: 2 Jul 1862

The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his own land.
Pollock CB said: ‘I do not think that the nuisance for which an action will lie is capable of any legal definition which will be applicable to all cases and useful in deciding them. The question so entirely depends on the surrounding circumstances, the place where, the time when, the alleged nuisance, what the mode of committing it, how, and the duration of it, whether temporary or permanent, occasional or continual, as to make it impossible to lay down any rule of law applicable to every case and which will also be useful in assisting a jury to come to a satisfactory conclusion, it must at all times be a question of fact with reference to all the circumstances of the case.’ A landowner will not be liable in nuisance for the consequences of what would be recognised as a natural use of his land by him, unless the quality or extent of that use by him was unreasonable: ‘ . . those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action.’
Bramwell B, Pollock CB
[1862] LR 3 BandS 62, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, (1862) 3 B and S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27
Bailii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 1860
Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 5-Nov-1860
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .

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 – 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 – Cambridge 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 . .
Cited – Anthony and others v The Coal Authority QBD 28-Jul-2005
The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.188038

Solloway v Hampshire County Council: CA 1981

Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as to the foreseeability of there being pockets of clay in the gravel upon which the damaged houses predominantly sat. Another issue concerned the question whether any operation on the trees, short of felling them, would have eliminated the risk posed by the roots if there were exceptionally dry weather and if those roots were passing through clay. At first instance, judgment was given for the plaintiffs in nuisance.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The judge had been wrong to hold that damage to the plaintiff’s house from the tree roots was a reasonably foreseeable risk. The existence of clay pockets under a house such that of the plaintiff was no more than an outside chance, and balancing that risk with the steps that would have been necessary for the defendants to have dealt with the risk, there was no breach of duty on the part of the defendant council.
Dunne LJ said: ‘The duty in respect of the nuisance arises if the encroachment of the roots is known, or ought to be known, to the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the tree and its maintenance, if the encroachment is such as to give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk that such encroachment will cause damage.’
Sir David Cairns said: ‘To say that a risk of damage is reasonably foreseeable means that it is foreseeable, not merely as a theoretical possibility but as something, the chance of which occurring, is such that a reasonable man would consider it necessary to take account of it. The risk of being struck by lightning when one goes for a walk is not a reasonably foreseeable risk. I should be prepared to hold that the risk in this case was not a reasonably foreseeable risk. If, however, it could be said to be a reasonably foreseeable risk, I am satisfied that it was a risk, such that the cost and inconvenience of taking any effective steps to remove it or reduce it would be quite out of proportion to that risk. There is nothing in the evidence to show that No. 72 Shirley Avenue was any more at risk than any other house in the Avenue. Nor is there anything to show that any operation on the trees, short of felling, would have made the roots safe if there were exceptionally dry weather and if the roots of any particular tree were passing through clay’.
Dunne LJ, Sir David Cairns
(1981) 79 LGR 449, [1981] 1 WLR 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .

Cited by:
Cited – Kirk and others v London Borough of Brent CA 8-Dec-2005
The defendant council had obtained a strike out of the claimant’s assertion that they were responsible in nuisance for damages caused by tree roots.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded. While the simple . .
Cited – Delaware 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 . .
Cited – Berent 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. . .
Cited – LE Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The Council appealed against a finding that it was liable for damage to the claimant’s property caused by the roots of trees on the highway maintained by the appellant. The Council asked whether it was the correct defendant having acted as agent for . .
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .
Cited – Robbins v London Borough of Bexley CA 17-Oct-2013
robbins_bexleyCA1013
The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which . .
Cited – Hurst 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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.241665

Bamford v Turnley: 1860

Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage.
[1860] EngR 10, (1860) 2 F and F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 5-Nov-1860
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .
See Also – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.284849

Dunne v North Western Gas Board: CA 1964

Works carried out by virtue of a statutory authority are a recognised exemption to liability under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The defendant’s liability in Rylands: ‘could simply have been placed on the defendants’ failure of duty to take reasonable care’.
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is excluded for works constructed or conducted under statutory authority.
Sellers LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said: ‘Where there is a mandatory obligation . . there would be, in our opinion, no liability if what had been done was that which was expressly required by statute to be done or was reasonably incidental to that requirement and was done without negligence.’
Sellers LJ
[1964] 2 QB 806
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.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.188032

Attorney-General v Corke: ChD 1933

The defendant whose land had been occupied by caravan dwellers for profit was liable in public nuisance and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and was restrained by injunction. Offending acts had been committed by the caravan dwellers, who were permitted to occupy the defendant’s land, on other land in the neighbourhood. Bennett J rejected the submission of the defendant’s counsel that: ‘The defendant cannot be made responsible for acts done by the caravan dwellers off the defendant’s property.’
Liability was established under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher, which: ‘affords in my judgment a basis on which the defendant can be made responsible in law for the nuisance which undoubtedly exists, on the facts, in the vicinity of this camp and which nuisance is caused by some of the people whom he brings there for his own profit’
Bennett J said: ‘The acts which, I think, give rise to a danger to the health of the neighbourhood, are acts done, not on the defendant’s land, but off it by people who live on it’ and
‘The plaintiffs have, however, failed to prove that anything done on the defendant’s land gives rise to a complaint by the neighbours . . All the acts which do interfere with the comfort and convenience of the neighbourhood, and which threaten the health of the neighbourhood, are acts done not on the defendant’s land, but off it, by people whom the defendant brings on to it for his profit’
Bennett J
[1933] Ch 89
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lippiatt 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.445031

Noble v Harrison: CA 1926

A tree shed a limb onto a passer-by, causing personal injury. The Court of Appeal reversed the original finding in favour of the claimant because the defect could not have been discovered by inspection. A land-owner may become liable for a naturally occurring danger arising on his land if he fails to remedy it within a reasonable time of being made aware of it, or from when he ought to have been aware of it. Rowlatt J said: ‘a person is liable for a nuisance constituted by the state of his property: (1) if he causes it; (2) if by neglect of some duty he allowed it to arise; and (3) if, when it has arisen without his own act or default, he omits to remedy it within a reasonable time after he did or ought to have become aware of it’. However: ‘I see no ground for holding that the owner is to become an insurer of nature, or that default is to be imputed to him until it appears, or would appear upon proper inspection, that nature can no longer be relied upon . .’
Rowlatt J
[1926] 2 KB 332
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Chapman v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham CA 13-Jul-1998
The plaintiff was severely injured when a branch was broken from a tree in a high wind, and fell onto the van he was driving. The land-owner appealed a finding of liability in nuisance.
Held: The local authority were also the highway . .
Cited – Leakey 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 – Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind and Another TCC 11-Jun-2014
A train crash was caused when an ash tree fell from the defendant’s land across the railway line. The company sought damages from the land-owner.
Held: The land-owner’s duty extended no further than the carrying out of periodic informal or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.216495

East Northamptonshire District Council v Brian Fossett: 1994

The case involved an allegation of noise, a nuisance at an all night rave. No works were required to abate the nuisance and whether the 1990 Act had created any fundamental change in the law, as the Council claims, was not raised.
[1994] Env LR 388
Environmental Protection Act 1990
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.184807

London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co v Truman: 1885

Lord Halsbury LC described the idea that it was a defence to nuisance to say that the plaintiff came to it as an ‘old notion . . long since exploded’
(1885) LR 11 App Cas 45
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.536796

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 defence if the fire started accidentally but was then continued and not extinguished by the negligence of the householder.
Bankes LJ set out of the common law before liability for fire was restricted by statute, saying: ‘A man was liable at common law for damage done by fire originating on his own property (1) for the mere escape of the fire; (2) if the fire was caused by the negligence of himself or his servants, or by his own wilful act; (3) upon the principle of Rylands v Fletcher. This principle was not then known by that name, because Rylands v Fletcher was not then decided; but it was an existing principle of the common law as I shall show presently.’ Filliter v Phippard had decided that a fire negligently begun was not protected by the statute; and asked: ‘Why, if that is the law as to the second head of liability, should it be otherwise as to the third head, the liability on the principle of Rylands v Fletcher? If that liability existed, there is no reason why the statute should alter it and yet leave untouched the liability for fire caused by negligence or design. That the principle of Rylands v Fletcher existed long before that case was decided is plain. In Vaughan v Menlove Tindal CJ says: ‘There is a rule of law which says you must so enjoy your own property as not to injure that of another.’ Park J says: ‘Although the facts in this case are new in specie, they fall within a principle long established, that a man must so use his own property as not to injure that of others.’ Rylands v Fletcher is merely an illustration of that old principle, and in my opinion Lush J was right in saying that this case, if it falls within that principle, is not within the protection of the statute.’
Warrington LJ approved the comment of Lush J at first instance: ‘If this motor car with the petrol in its tank was potentially dangerous, such as a man’s own fire, then it was the defendant’s duty to see that the potential danger did not become an actual danger causing damage to his neighbour. The Act of Geo. 3 is no protection against that liability.’
Duke LJ used different reasoning. Although he applied Rylands v Fletcher applied, he went on to consider whether the fire was accidental for the purposes of section 86. He said: ‘I do not see how this case can be taken out of the principle of Rylands v Fletcher, which was thus stated by Lord Cairns LC in the very words of Blackburn J: ‘The true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril.’ He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default or perhaps that it was the consequence of vis major or the act of God. In the present case there was petrol which was easily convertible into an inflammable vapour; there was the apparatus for producing a spark; and added to those there was a person supposed to control the combustion but inexperienced and unequal to the task. Taking together the presence of the petrol, and the production of the inflammable gas, or those combustibles together with the inexperience of the person placed in charge of them, it is impossible to say that this is not an instance of the principle laid down by Blackburn J.’
. . ‘That would dispose of this case but for the defendant’s contention that he is excused by s. 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774. In my opinion the terms of that enactment fall far short of showing a definite intention to relieve a defendant in such a case as this. The actions against which the statute gives protection are in respect of fires which shall accidentally begin. I have the greatest doubt whether this fire began accidentally at any stage. If it was all one fire, it was begun not accidentally but intentionally. If progressive stages may be regarded it was not a fire which began accidentally without negligence at the stage when it became a conflagration involving goods and premises. The question may some day be discussed whether a fire, spreading from a domestic hearth, accidentally begins within the meaning of the Act, if such a fire should extend so as to involve the destruction of property or premises. I do not covet the task of the advocate who has to contend that it does. In the present case the fire, so far as it was a means of mischief, resulted from the negligent omission to turn off the petrol tap, an act which would have stopped the flow of petrol. All the witnesses who had any experience of such matters drew a distinction between fire in a carburettor, where the vapour can be instantly out off, and such a fire as occurred in this case. The learned judge has found that this fire was due to negligence. I cannot disagree with him. Whatever may be the effect of the Act of Geo. 3 upon the nice questions that have been discussed, this case is outside any possible protection of that statute.’
Bankes LJ, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ
[1919] 2 KB 43
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Musgrove v Pandelis 1919
Mr Musgrove rented rooms above a domestic garage, in which Mr Pandelis kept a car. Mr Pandelis sent his chauffeur, Mr Coumis, to clean the car. Mr Coumis had to move the car within the garage. For that purpose he went to the bonnet and turned on the . .
Cited – Vaughan 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 . .
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 – Filliter v Phippard 9-Dec-1847
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 . .

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 – LMS 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 . .
Wrong in part – 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 – Job 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2021; Ref: scu.188044

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area): ChD 1985

Threats made by pickets to those miners who sought to go to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles which the working miners were within. The plaintiffs were, however, entitled to enjoy their right to use the highway to go to work without unreasonable harassment and that picketing by 50 to 70 striking miners shouting abuse was a tortious interference with that right. The actions of the striking miners were therefore actionable in nuisance.
Scot J
[1986] Ch 20, [1985] 2 All ER 1, [1985] IRLR 157, [1985] ICR 886, [1985] 2 WLR 1081
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.466788

Corporation 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 altered. A culvert was constructed and the burn buried. The surface of the park thereafter sloped down to Inverkip Road, which had become the lowest level and the channel for surface water which formerly drained into the burn. In addition, the defendants constructed a paddling pool at the mouth of the culvert which obstructed the flow of water and it was admitted that those works obstructed about ‘half the flow of water which would otherwise go down the culvert’. Flooding occurred in 1909 and then on the occasion with which the action was concerned in August 1912. The question asked was whether the defendants could establish ‘damnum fatale’ in the law of Scotland, hich, would approximate to act of God in English law. Lord Shaw assumed that there was no difference on the topic between the law of England and that of Scotland.
Held: The appellants had failed to establish any defence: ‘It is true that the flood was of extraordinary violence, but floods of extraordinary violence must be anticipated as likely to take place from time to time. It is the duty of any one who interferes with the course of a stream to see that the works which he substitutes for the channel provided by nature are adequate to carry off the water brought down even by extraordinary rainfall, and if damage results from the deficiency of the substitute which he has provided for the natural channel he will be liable. Such damage is not in the nature of damnum fatale, but is the direct result of the obstruction of a natural watercourse by the defenders’ works followed by heavy rain’.
Lord Finlay LC, Lord Shaw
[1917] AC 556
Scotland
Cited by:
Adopted – Pemberton 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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.220837

South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV: HL 1987

There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to grant an injunction at all, and stated certain basic principles governing the grant of an injunction. The first was that the power to grant an injunction was statutory (s. 37 of the 1981 Act). The third related to injunctions to restore proceedings in a foreign court, with which we are not concerned. The second was this: ‘The second basic principle is that, although the terms of section 37 (1) of the Act of 1981 and its predecessors are very wide, the power conferred by them has been circumscribed by judicial authority dating back many years. The nature of the limitations to which the power is subject has been considered in a number of recent cases in your Lordships’ House ‘
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook: ‘. . . The effect of these authorities, so far as material to the present case, can be summarised by saying that the power of the High Court to grant injunctions is, subject to two exceptions to which I shall refer shortly, limited to two situations. Situation (1) is when one party to an action can show that the other party has either invaded, or threatens to invade a legal or equitable right of the former for the enforcement of which the latter is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. Situation (2) is where one party to an action has behaved, or threatens to behave, in a manner which is unconscionable.’ The House would not define unconscionable conduct save that it included conduct which is oppressive or vexatious or which interferes with the due process of the court.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley: ‘I am reluctant to accept the proposition that the power of the court to grant injunctions is restricted to certain exclusive categories. That power is unfettered by statute; and it is impossible for us now to foresee every circumstance in which it may be thought right to make the remedy available.’
References: [1987] AC 24, [1986] 3 WLR 398, [1986] 3 A11 ER 487, [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 317
Judges: Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 37
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
    An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
    ([1979] AC 210, [1979] 3 WLR 818, [1979] 3 All ER 803)
  • Cited – Castanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
    A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
    Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .
    ([1981] AC 557)
  • Cited – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
    The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
    Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
    ([1985] AC 58, , [1984] UKHL 7, [1984] 3 WLR 413, [1984] 3 All ER 39)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
    Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
    Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
    ([2004] EWHC 12 (Ch), , Times 30-Jan-04, [2004] 2 WLR 1291, [2004] Ch 253)
  • Cited – Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank Ba CA 23-Jan-2004
    The claimant sought an order to restrain proceedings in New York. The parties were based in Canada and the Netherlands, with places of business in New York and London also. The swap agreement underlying the claim provide for it to be governed . .
    (, [2004] EWCA Civ 7)
  • Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
    The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
    Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
    (, [2004] EWCA Civ 140, Gazette 18-Mar-04, [2004] 2 Ch 36)
  • Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
    The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
    (, [2007] UKHL 1, Times 25-Jan-07, [2007] 1 WLR 320, [2007] 1 All ER 1087, [2007] Bus LR 925)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192161

Attorney-General v Doughty: 1752

As to any right of prospect, a building erected so as to spoil a view cannot at common law be a nuisance for that reason.
Lord Hardwicke LC said: ‘I know no general rule of common law, which warrants that, or says, that building so as to stop another’s prospect is a nuisance. Was that the case, there could be no great towns; and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town . . .’
References: (1752) 2 Ves Sen 453, [1752] 28 ER 290
Judges: Lord Hardwicke LC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997 (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, , [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.195583

Banfai v Formula Fun Centre Inc; 13 Dec 1984

References: 1984 CanLII 2198, 34 CCLT 171(HCJ), [1984] OJ No 3444
Links: Canlii
Coram: O’Leary J
Ratio: 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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 46, [2014] WLR(D) 332, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, [2014] PTSR 1014, [2014] 4 All ER 517, [2015] 1 AC 106, [2014] 3 WLR 555, [2014] HLR 42, [2014] 5 Costs LO 759, [2014] 2 P &CR 19, SC Summary Video)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 06-Sep-16
Ref: 551696

Munro v Southern Dairies; 18 Apr 1955

References: [1955] VLR 332, [1955] ALR 793, [1955] VicLawRp 60
Links: Austlii
Coram: Sholl J
Ratio: (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 . . )’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 28-Jul-16
Ref: 536799

Swaine v The Great Northern Railway Company; 25 Jan 1864

References: [1864] EngR 173, (1864) 4 De G J & S 211, (1864) 46 ER 899
Links: Commonlii
Ratio Occurrences of nuisance, if temporary and occasional only, are not grounds for the interference of the Court of Chancery by injunction, except in extreme cases. Therefore, where a railway company carried down to and deposited on a siding to their line manure which was occasionally not proper manure, and they occasionally allowed it to remain there longer than it ought to have remained : Held, in a suit by a neighbouring landowner for an injunction to restrain the nuisance and for damages:
1. That the court would not interfere by way of injunction.
2. That the Court would not enter into the question of damages, the case being one which, in the judgment ofthe Court, could be more effectually disposed of at law than in equity, and Sir Hugh Cairns’s Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27) only giving the Court of Chancery jurisdiction to give damages in any case where a bill is properly filed in it, while Mr. Rolt’s Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 42) does not make it compulsory on the Court so to do.

Last Update: 21-Apr-16
Ref: 281887

Richards v Easto; 21 Feb 1846

References: [1846] EngR 436, (1846) 15 M & W 244, (1846) 153 ER 840
Links: Commonlii
Section 86 of the 1774 Act applies to the whole country.
Statutes: Fires Prevention Metropolis Act 1774
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    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 . .

Aldridge v The Great Western Railway Company; 19 Nov 1841

References: , [1841] EngR 1095, (1841) 3 Man & G 515, (1841) 133 ER 1246
Links: Commonlii
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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    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 . .

Filliter v Phippard; 9 Dec 1847

References: [1847] EngR 999, (1847) 11 QB 347, (1847) 116 ER 506
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Denman CJ
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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    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 ([1919] 2 KB 43)
    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 . .

National Coal Board v Thorne; 2 Jan 1976

References: [1976] 1 WLR 543
Coram: Watkins J
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.’
Statutes: Public Health Act 1936
This case cites:

  • Cited – Salford City Council -v- McNally HL ([1976] AC 379)
    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 . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cunningham -v- Birmingham City Council Admn (Times 09-Jun-97, Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 440)
    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 . .

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd; HCA 1994

References: [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520
Coram: Mason CJ
(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the progressive weakening of the rule by judicial decision, by recognition that the law of negligence had been very greatly developed and expanded since Rylands v Fletcher was decided and by a belief that most claimants entitled to succeed under the rule would succeed in a claim for negligence anyway: ‘Where a duty of care arises under the ordinary law of negligence, the standard of care exacted is that which is reasonable in the circumstances. It has been emphasised in many cases that the degree of care under that standard necessarily varies with the risk involved and that the risk involved includes both the magnitude of the risk of an accident happening and the seriousness of the potential damage if an accident should occur . . even where a dangerous substance or dangerous activity of a kind which might attract the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is involved, the standard of care remains ‘that which is reasonable in the circumstances, that which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the circumstances’: Adelaide Chemical & Fertiliser Co Ltd v Carlyle [1940] 64CLR514 at page 523. In the case of such substances or activities, however, a reasonably prudent person would exercise a higher degree of care. Indeed, depending upon the magnitude of the danger, the standard of ‘reasonable care’ may involve ‘a degree of diligence so stringent as to amount practically to a guarantee of safety”
This case cites:

  • Explained – Rylands -v- Fletcher HL ((1868) LR 3 HL 330, Bailii, [1868] UKHL 1)
    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 . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transco plc -v- Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P & CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143)
    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 – LMS International Ltd and others -v- Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC))
    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 . .
  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    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 . .

Viscount Canterbury v The Attorney-General; 11 Feb 1843

References: [1843] EngR 359, (1842-1843) 1 Ph 306, (1843) 41 ER 648
Links: Commonlii
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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    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 . .

Tipping v The St Helens Smelting Company (Limited); 26 Nov 1864

References: [1864] EngR 809 (B), (1864) 4 B & S 616
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – St Helen’s Smelting Co -v- Tipping HL ([1865] 11 HL Cas 642, Bailii, [1865] UKHL J81, 11 ER 1483)
    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 . .

Bamford v Turnley; 2 Jul 1862

References: [1862] LR 3 B&S 62, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, (1862) 3 B & S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27
Links: Bailii, Commonlii
Coram: Bramwell B, Pollock CB
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his own land.
Pollock CB said: ‘I do not think that the nuisance for which an action will lie is capable of any legal definition which will be applicable to all cases and useful in deciding them. The question so entirely depends on the surrounding circumstances, the place where, the time when, the alleged nuisance, what the mode of committing it, how, and the duration of it, whether temporary or permanent, occasional or continual, as to make it impossible to lay down any rule of law applicable to every case & which will also be useful in assisting a jury to come to a satisfactory conclusion, it must at all times be a question of fact with reference to all the circumstances of the case.’ A landowner will not be liable in nuisance for the consequences of what would be recognised as a natural use of his land by him, unless the quality or extent of that use by him was unreasonable: ‘ . . those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 10, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037)
    Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .
  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 1082, Commonlii, (1860) 3 B & S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25)
    An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transco plc -v- Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P & CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143)
    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 – Arscott and others -v- Coal Authority and Another CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR6)
    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 – Cambridge Water Company -v- Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL (Times 10-Dec-93, Gazette 16-Mar-94, Independent 10-Dec-93, lip, (1994) 1 All ER 53, [1994] 2 WLR 53, [1994] 2 AC 264, Bailii, [1993] UKHL 12)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Anthony and others -v- The Coal Authority QBD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1654 (QB))
    The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
  • Cited – Southwark London Borough Council -v- Mills/Tanner; Baxter -v- Camden London Borough Council HL (Times 22-Oct-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P & CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L & TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138)
    Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
    Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited); 26 Nov 1864

References: [1864] EngR 808 (A), (1864) 4 B & S 616
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – St Helen’s Smelting Co -v- Tipping HL ([1865] 11 HL Cas 642, Bailii, [1865] UKHL J81, 11 ER 1483)
    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 . .

Bliss v Hall; 17 Jan 1838

References: , [1838] EngR 346, (1838) 4 Bing NC 183, (1838) 132 ER 758
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ
To an action of nuisance for carrying on the business of a tallow chandler, in a messuage adjoining the messuage of the Plaintiff, it is no plea that the Defendant was possessed of his messuage, and the business was carried on, before the Plaintiff became possessed of and occupied the adjoining messuage. However, a right to emit ‘noxious vapours and smells’ might be acquired by prescription
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

Bamford v Turnley; 5 Nov 1860

References: [1860] EngR 1082, (1860) 3 B & S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erle CJ, Williams and Keating JJ, Bramwell and Wilde BB
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance according to the ordinary rule of law; and this whatever he locality may be where he act is done; and where, on trial of such an action, it appears that the act complained of was done on the land of the defendant, the jury cannot properly be asked whether the causing of the nuisance was a reasonable use by the defendant of his own land.
Bramwell B said: ‘There must be, then, some principle on which such cases must be excepted. It seems to me that that principle may be deduced from the character of these cases, and is this, viz: that those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action . . There is an obvious necessity for such a principle as I have mentioned. It is as much for the advantage of one owner as of another; for the very nuisance the one complains of, as the result of the ordinary use of his neighbour’s land, he himself will create in the ordinary use of his own, and the reciprocal nuisances are of a comparatively trifling character. The convenience of such a rule may be indicated by calling it a rule of give and take, live and let live.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 10, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037)
    Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1862] LR 3 B&S 62, Bailii, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, Commonlii, (1862) 3 B & S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27)
    The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
    Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
  • Cited – Southwark London Borough Council -v- Mills/Tanner; Baxter -v- Camden London Borough Council HL (Times 22-Oct-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P & CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L & TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138)
    Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
    Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

Whitehouse v Fellowes; 12 Feb 1861

References: (1861) 10 CB (NS) 765, [1861] EngR 314, (1861) 10 CB NS 765, (1861) 142 ER 654
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Williams J, Byles J
The trustees of a turnpike road converted an open ditch by the side of the road into a covered drain but did so negligently, and the catch pits were constructed and kept, so that the drain was at times of heavy rain insufficient to carry off the water to its accustomed channel and was diverted onto other land causing damage. The issue was whether time began to run against a plaintiff from the date of the original construction of the works.
Held:’the continuance by the defendants of that negligent and improper condition of the road under their charge, if accompanied by fresh damage to the plaintiff, constitutes a new cause of action’. And ‘Suppose an action to have been commenced immediately after the first injury accrued to the plaintiff’s pits from the flow of water down the road in question: when that cause came to be tried, the only question would be how much damage the plaintiff had actually sustained. It would be monstrous injustice to hold that the damages must be assessed upon that assumption. All that the jury could do would be to find what damages the plaintiff had sustained from the wrongful act complained of: and they would be told to give him such damages as they might find he has sustained down to the time of the commencement of the action. According to the assumption, the plaintiff has sustained damage from the wrongful construction of the nuisance. Did the statute intend that he should have no remedy for that? The true answer to this objection, as it seems to me, is, that no fresh cause of action arises from each fresh damage, but that, where there is not only a fresh damage but a continuance of the cause of damage, such continuance of the wrongful act which caused the damage constitutes a fresh cause of action.’
Byles J said: ‘There would be a new and distinct injury every time a storm came; and this declaration is in form a declaration for a continuation of a nuisance.’
Keating J stated:
‘Here is a continuation of the nuisance, and a new distinct and complete cause of action in respect thereof, for which I think the plaintiff had a right to sue.’

Lambourn v London Brick Co Ltd; 28 Jul 1950

References: [1950] EG 28 July 1950
Finnemore J stated that an unreasonable burden must not be placed on the reasonable owner: ‘the standard to be taken should be that of an ordinary landowner and not an expert. It was neither the duty nor the practice of the ordinary prudent landowner to make a meticulous examination of its individual trees.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd -v- Hind and Another TCC (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC))
    A train crash was caused when an ash tree fell from the defendant’s land across the railway line. The company sought damages from the land-owner.
    Held: The land-owner’s duty extended no further than the carrying out of periodic informal or . .

Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood; 14 Dec 1983

References: [1984] 1 NZLR 525
Coram: Hardie Boys J
High Court – New Zealand. The glass roof of a verandah which deflected the sun’s rays so that a dazzling glare was thrown on to neighbouring buildings was held, prima facie, to create a nuisance. Hardie Boys J said: ‘To the extent that this is an appeal to set the public interest ahead of the private interests of the plaintiffs, then I regret that authority requires me to close my ears to it’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hunter and Others -v- Canary Wharf Ltd HL (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
    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 – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .

The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson And Others; 14 Nov 1823

References: [1823] EngR 745, (1823) 2 B & C 302, (1823) 107 ER 396
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Best J
Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s manor. Pleas, first, general issue; second, that from time immemorial there hath been and still is a public port partfy within the said manor, and also in a river which has been a public navigable river from time immemorial, and that there is in that part of the port which is within the manor, an ancient work necessary for the preservation of the port, and for the safety and convenience of the ships resorting to it ; that this work was, at the several times when, &c. in decay; that plaintiff would not repair it, but neglected so to do, wherefore defendants entered and repaired. Replication, de injuria. Verdict for plaintiff on first plea, and for defendants on the second: Held, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto, as the second plea did not state that immediate repairs were necessary, or that any one bound to do so had neglected to repair after notice, or that a reasonable time for repairing had elapsed, or that defendants had occasion to use the port.
Best J said: ‘Nuisances by an act of commission are committed in defiance of those whom such nuisances injure, and the injured party may abate them without notice to the person who committed them, but there is no decided case which sanctions the abatement by an individual of nuisances from omission, except that of cutting the branches of trees which overhang a public road or the private property of the person who cuts them.’
. . And: ‘The security of lives and property may sometimes require so speedy a remedy as not to allow time to call on the person in whose property the mischief has arisen, to remedy it. In such cases an individual would be justified in abating a nuisance from omission without notice. In all other cases of such nuisances, persons should not take the law into their own hands, but follow the advice of Lord Hale, and appeal to a court of justice.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lemmon -v- Webb HL ([1895] AC 1, Bailii, [1894] UKHL 1)
    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 land. He was not required to give notice of his intention to do so. . .
  • Cited – Lagan Navigation Co -v- Lambeg Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Co Ltd HL ([1927] AC 226)
    Lord Atkinson stated: ‘It has been well said that the abatement of a nuisance is a remedy which the law does not favour and is not usually advisable, and that its exercise destroys any right of action in respect of the nuisance.’
    Concluding, . .