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, he said: ‘In my opinion, this never was an appropriate case for self-redress, even if the plaintiff had acted promptly. There was no emergency. There were difficult questions of law and fact to be considered and the remedy by way of self-redress, if it had resulted in the demolition of the garage wall, would have been out of all proportion to the damage suffered by the plaintiff . . But, even if there ever had been a right of self-redress, it ceased when Judge Main refused to grant a mandatory injunction. We are now in a position to answer the question left open by Chitty J in Lane v Capsey  3 Ch.411. Self-redress is a summary remedy, which is justified only in clear and simple cases, or in an emergency. Where a plaintiff has applied for a mandatory injunction and failed, the sole justification for a summary remedy has gone. The court has decided the very point in issue. This is so whether the complaint lies in trespass or nuisance.’
 AC 226
England and Wales
Cited – The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson And Others 14-Nov-1823
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 . .
Cited – Campbell Davys v Lloyd 1901
Collins LJ said: ‘The right of abatement by individuals is not regarded with favour by the law. In the words of Lord Hale: ‘because this many times occasions tumults and disorders, the best way to reform public nuisances is by the ordinary courts of . .
Cited – Lane v Capsey 1891
A building society held a charge over property which enjoyed a right of way over neighbouring land. The right was obstructed by the neighbour building over it. Their request for the removal of the obstruction had been rejected by the court with no . .
Cited – Chamberlain v Lindon Admn 18-Mar-1998
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his private prosecution of the defendant in destroying a new garden wall. The magistrates had found a lawful excuse in that the defendant said that the wall had been constructed to obstruct his private right . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.541706