

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		Nuisance - From: 1849 To: 1899 This page lists 68 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018. Â Â Smith v Kenrick; CCP 1849 - [1849] 7 CB 515; [1849] LJCP 172; [1849] 12 LTOS 556; [1849] 13 Jur 362; [1849] 137 ER 205 Â Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315; [1851] EngR 335; (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315; (1851) 64 ER 849 1851 Knight Bruce V-C Nuisance The burning of bricks 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 delicacy or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people?" 1 Citers [ Commonlii ] Â Broadbent v The Imperial Gas Company [1857] EngR 222 (B); (1856-1857) 7 De G M & G 436 31 Jan 1857 Nuisance 1 Citers [ Commonlii ] Â Imperial Gas Light And Coke Company v Broadbent [1859] EngR 915; (1859) 7 HLC 600; (1859) 11 ER 239 4 Aug 1859 HL Lord Campbell LC Litigation Practice, Equity, Nuisance 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 circumstances, entitled to an injunction to prevent a recurrence of that violation. For such a purpose the award of an arbitrator is equivalent to a verdict. If between the time of the case being referred and the award being made there has been an alteration in the mode of carrying on the business complained of, it may, if in diminution of the cause of injury, be shown as an answer to the application for an injunction; but if in increase of the cause of injury, it need not be the subject of a fresh proceeding at law; that is matter for the discretion of the Court of Equity. A Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for an injury to his business occasioned by the erection. of gas works; the action was referred to arbitration; nearly two years elapsed before the award was made, in the course of which time alteratione in the mode of carrying on the business complained of were effected; two months after the date of the award the injunction was applied for: Held, that there had not been any such. acquiescence as to deprive the Plaintiff of his right to the injunction. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Commonlii ] Â Bamford v Turnley [1860] EngR 10; (1860) 2 F & F 231; (1860) 175 ER 1037 1860 Nuisance 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. 1 Citers [ Commonlii ] Â Â Bamford v Turnley; 5-Nov-1860 - [1860] EngR 1082; (1860) 3 B & S 62; (1860) 122 ER 25 Â Â Whitehouse v Fellowes; 12-Feb-1861 - (1861) 10 CB (NS) 765; [1861] EngR 314; (1861) 10 CB NS 765; (1861) 142 ER 654 Â Â Bamford v Turnley; 2-Jul-1862 - [1862] LR 3 B&S 62; [1862] EWHC Exch J63; [1862] EngR 907; (1862) 3 B & S 66; (1862) 122 ER 27 Â Baird v Williamson [1863] 15 CB(NS) 317 1863 Nuisance The parties worked mines on adjacent land. Water flooded the plaintiff's mine and he sought damages from the defendant. Held: He was liable. The water from the defendant's mine had been raised to a higher level by pumping ("non-naturally") and then flowed into the other mine. 1 Citers Â Tipping v The St Helen's Smelting Company (Limited) [1863] EngR 907; (1863) 4 B & S 608; (1863) 122 ER 588 6 Nov 1863 Nuisance 1 Citers [ Commonlii ] Â Swaine v The Great Northern Railway Company [1864] EngR 173; (1864) 4 De G J & S 211; (1864) 46 ER 899 25 Jan 1864 Nuisance, Equity, Litigation Practice 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. [ Commonlii ] Â Â Tipping v The St Helens Smelting Company (Limited); 26-Nov-1864 - [1864] EngR 809 (B); (1864) 4 B & S 616 Â Â Tipping v The St Helen's Smelting Company (Limited); 26-Nov-1864 - [1864] EngR 808 (A); (1864) 4 B & S 616 Â Â St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping; HL 1865 - [1865] 11 HL Cas 642; [1865] UKHL J81; 11 ER 1483 Â Â Rylands v Fletcher; CEC 1865 - (1866) LR 1 Ex 265; [1865] 3 H&C 774; [1865] EngR 436; (1865) 3 H & C 774; (1865) 159 ER 737 Â Jones v Festiniog Railway (1867-68) LR 3 QB 733 1867 CEC Blackburn and Lush JJ Nuisance The defendant railway company ran steam locomotives on its railway. Although it had taken all reasonable precautions against the emission of sparks from the engine, nevertheless sparks from the engine set the plaintiff's haystack alight and burned down his barn. Held: The claim succeeded. The thing of the dangerous nature that the railway company had brought onto its land was the locomotive engine with the deliberately kindled fire. Blackburn J said: "The general rule of common law is correctly given in Fletcher v Rylands, that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous nature on his own land, he must keep it in at his own peril; and is liable for the consequences if it escapes and does injury to his neighbour. Here the defendants were using a locomotive engine with no express parliamentary powers making lawful that use, and they are therefore at common law bound to keep the engines from doing injury, and if the sparks escape and cause damage, the defendants are liable for the consequences, though no actual negligence be shewn on their part." Lush J said: "I can see nothing in this statute to licence the company to use locomotive engines. In the absence of this licence the company are left to their liabilities at common law: that is, if they use a highly dangerous machine, they must do so at the peril of the consequences if it cause injury to others." Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86 1 Citers Â Gautret v Egerton (1867) LR 2 CP 371 1867 Nuisance 1 Citers Â Â Crump v Lambert; CA 1867 - (1867) LR 3 Eq 409 Â Â Rylands v Fletcher; HL 1868 - (1868) LR 3 HL 330; [1868] UKHL 1 Â Â Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand; HL 1869 - [1869] LR 4 HL 171 Â Â Saxby v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co; 1869 - [1869] LR 4 CP 198 Â Â Carstairs v Taylor; 1871 - [1871] LR 6 Exch 217; [1871] 40 LJ Ex 120; [1871] 19 WR 723 Â Â Ross v Fedden; HL 1872 - [1872] 26 LT 966; (1872) LR 7 QB 661 Â Ball v Ray (1873) LR 8 Ch D 467 1873 Lord Selborne LC Nuisance The occupier of a house in a street in Mayfair had many years previously converted the ground floor into a stable. A new occupier altered the location of the stable so that the noise of the horses became an annoyance to the next-door neighbour and prevented him from letting his house as lodgings. Held: Lord Selborne LC said: "In making out a case of nuisance of this character, there are always two things to be considered, the right of the Plaintiff and the right of the Defendant. If the houses adjoining each other are so built that from the commencement of their existence it is manifest that each adjoining inhabitant was intended to enjoy his own property for the ordinary purposes for which it and all the different parts of it were constructed, then so long as the house is so used there is nothing that can be regarded in law as a nuisance which the other party has a right to prevent. But, on the other hand, if either party turns his house, or any portion of it, to unusual purposes in such a manner as to produce a substantial injury to his neighbour, it appears to me that that is not according to principle or authority a reasonable use of his own property; and his neighbour, shewing substantial injury, is entitled to protection. I do not regard it as a reasonable or as a usual manner of using the front portion of a dwelling house in such a street as Green Street, that it should be turned into stables for horses; and, if it is so used, then the proprietor is bound to take care that it is so used as not to be a substantial annoyance, detrimental to the comfort and to the value of the neighbours' property." 1 Citers Â Benjamin v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400 1874 Brett J Nuisance, Damages The plaintiff’s coffee house was badly affected by the defendant’s wagons standing for long periods in the narrow street outside for the purposes of loading and unloading goods. The wagons blocked his light and the frequent stabling of the horses detracted from his enjoyment of his dwelling. Held: "The cases referred to upon this subject shew that there are three things which the plaintiff must substantiate, beyond the existence of the mere public nuisance, before he can be entitled to recover. In the first place, he must shew a particular injury to himself beyond that which is suffered by the rest of the public. It is not enough for him to shew that he suffers the same inconvenience in the use of the highway as other people do, if the alleged nuisance be the obstruction of a highway. Other cases shew that the injury to the individual must be direct, and not a mere consequential injury; as, where one way is obstructed, but another (though possibly less convenient one) is left open; in such a case the private and particular injury has been held not to be sufficiently direct to give a cause of action. Further, the injury must be shewn to be of a substantial character, not fleeting or evanescent." 1 Citers Â Ellis v Loftus Iron Co (1874) LR 10 CP 10 1874 Lord Coleridge CJ Torts - Other, Torts - Other, Nuisance, Animals, Agriculture, Land 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 is in fact a case of pure trespass to property, and thus constitutes a wrong without any question of negligence. Lord Coleridge CJ said: "It is clear that, in determining the question of trespass or no trespass, the court cannot measure the amount of the alleged trespass; if the defendant places a part of his foot on the plaintiff's land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a mile on it." 1 Citers Â Allan v The Overseers of Liverpool (1874) LR 9 QB 180 1874 Blacknurn J Nuisance The plaintiff (or joint plaintiffs) must be enjoying or asserting exclusive possession of the land to assert a claim in nuisance. 1 Citers Â Broder v Saillard (1875-6) LR 2 ChD 692; (1876) 2 Ch D 692 1875 Sir George Jessel MR Nuisance 1 Citers Â Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 CPD 423 1876 Nuisance 1 Citers Â Â Harris v James; 1876 - [1876] 35 LT 240 Â Â Nichols v Marsland; CA 1876 - [1876] 2 Ex D 1 Â Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex D 5 1878 Nuisance Â Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878) 3 App Cas 455 1878 HL Lord Blackburn Nuisance The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute "suffers a private loss for the public benefit", and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: "It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for doing that which the legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, although it does occasion damage to anyone." 1 Citers Â Â Glossop v Heston and Isleworth Local Board; 1878 - (1878) 12 ChD 102 Â Hurdman v North Eastern Railway Co (1878) 3 CPD 168 1878 Cotton LJ Nuisance The defendants raised their land, so that the rain collected and penetrated an adjoining wall and ran into the plaintiff's land, causing substantial damage. Held: The heap or mound erected on the defendants' land had to be considered as "an artificial work". the rainwater would not have percolated "but for" the rubble. Cotton LJ said: "Every occupier of land is entitled to the reasonable enjoyment thereof. This is a natural right of property, and it is well established that an occupier of land may protect himself by action against any one who allows any filth or any other noxious thing produced by him on his own land to interfere with this enjoyment. We are further of opinion that . . if any one by artificial erection on his own land causes water, even though arising from natural rain-fall only, to pass into his neighbour's land, and thus substantially to interfere with his enjoyment, he will be liable to an action at the suit of him who is so injured." 1 Citers Â Â Sturges v Bridgman; CA 1879 - [1879] 11 Ch D 852 Â Anderson v Oppenheimer [1880] 5 QBD 602; [1880] 49 LJQB 708 1880 CA Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant "peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by the defendant". Water was supplied through pipes from a cistern. A pipe leaked, letting water into the plaintiff's basement premises, damaging his goods. No negligence was found. Held: There was no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The water had been stored for the benefit of the plaintiff as much as for anyone else, and so a Rylands -v- Fletcher claim was not available. Although the escape of water was a consequence of the maintenance of the cistern and water supply by the landlord, it was not a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. It did not constitute an act or omission by the landlord or anyone lawfully claiming through him after the lease had been granted. The water system was there when the tenant took his lease and he had to take the building as he found it. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill [1881] All ER 536 1881 Nuisance (Year?) 1 Citers Â Inglis v Shotts Iron Co [1881] UKHL 2; (1881) 8 R 1006; (1881-82) LR 7 App Cas 518 20 Jul 1881 HL Scotland, Nuisance HL A mining company leased the coal and ironstone on an estate, subject to the condition that they should not conduct any operations within a certain area (which extended about two miles from the mansion-house). They thereafter commenced calcining ironstone in bings at places beyond this area, near their march. The proprietor of the adjoining estate raised an action concluding for interdict against the company calcining within two miles of his lands, on the ground that the smoke from their bings was destroying the trees in his plantations. Held, after a proof, (1) that the pursuer had proved that his plantations had been injured by the defenders' operations ; and (2) that he was entitled to interdict to prevent the defenders calcining within one mile of his march. [ Bailii ] Â Caledonian Railway Co v Walker's Trustees (1882) App Cas 259 1882 Lord Selborne LC Land, Nuisance The court considered the extent of the duty to compensate for disturbance of a business when land was compulsorily purchased. Lord Selborne LC said: "The obstruction by the execution of the work, of a man's direct access to his house or land, whether such access be by a public road or by private way, is a proper subject for compensation." 1 Citers Â Guardians of the Poor of the Union of Amesbury v Justices of the Peace of the County of Wiltshire (1883) 10 QBD 480 1883 QBD Cave and Day JJ Nuisance The removal of snow which obstructed the main roads of the district of a highway authority was an "expense incurred in the maintenance" of the highways for the purposes of obtaining a contribution from the county under section 13. Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 13 1 Citers Â Whalley v Lancs and Yorks Railway Co (1884) 13 QBD 131 1884 Nuisance After heavy rain, water accumulated against the defendants' railway embankment, endangering it. The defendants cut trenches in it to allow the water flowed through, where it then went on to the land of the plaintiff, on the far side of the embankment and at a lower level. This land flooded and was injured it to a greater extent as a result. The jury found that the cutting of the trenches was reasonably necessary for the protection of the defendants' property, and that it was not done negligently. The plaintiff argued "There is a great difference between a right to a landowner to protect his property against a common enemy, as was the case in Nield . . and Pagham Commissioners, and a right to pass such enemy on to the land of a neighbour." Held: Though the defendants had not brought the water on their land, they did not have a right to protect their property by transferring the mischief from their own land to that of the plaintiff, and that they were therefore liable: "if [the water] had been left alone and allowed simply to percolate through the embankment, even though all of it would have gone on to the plaintiff's land, it would have gone without doing the injury which was done by reason of its passing through the cuttings which the defendants made. The defendants did something for the preservation of their own property which transferred the misfortune from their land to that of the plaintiff, and therefore it seems to me that they are liable." 1 Citers Â Ballard v Tomlinson (1885) 29 ChD 115; (1885) 54 LJ Ch 454 1885 CA Nuisance The parties were neighbouring land owners, and each had a deep well. The defendant emptied the sewage from his property into his well, and this polluted also the neighbour's well. The pollution was actionable. His behaviour appropriated the water percolating through his land and he had no right of ownership of that water even though he had pumped it. No one may use his own land so as to cause a nuisance to his neighbour, and somebody who puts filth or poisonous waste on his land must ensure it does not escape to poison his neighbour's land. 1 Citers Â Â London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co v Truman; 1885 - (1885) LR 11 App Cas 45 Â Regina v Wheatley [1885] 16 QBD 34 1885 Nuisance If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. 1 Citers Â Â Fleming v Hislop; HL 1886 - (1886) LR 11 App Cas 686 Â Moore v Lambeth Waterworks Co (1886) 17 QBD 46 1886 Nuisance The defendants were found not liable when a fireplug lawfully fixed in a highway had become exposed as the road surface had worn. 1 Citers Â Â Rust v Victoria Graving Dock Co and London and St Katharine Dock Co; 1887 - (1887) 36 Ch D 113 Â Â Tod-Heatley v Benham; 1888 - (1888) 40 CH D 80 Â Regina v Parlby (1889) 22 QBD 520 1889 Utilities, Nuisance, Magistrates Sewage works could not be treated as 'premises' under the section. "The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . ." Public Health Act 1875 91 1 Citers Â Giles v Walker (1890) 24 QBD 656 1890 Nuisance 1 Citers Â Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company [1891] 2 Ch 409 1891 Vaughan-Williams J Nuisance, Construction A claim was made for damages for nuisance from construction works. Held: The obligations of the defendant company in respect of the sinking of the shaft were neither greater nor less than those of a private person; and that a private person would not, in similar circumstances, be held to have created a legal nuisance by reason of the annoyance caused to his neighbours in the thumping for the purpose of sinking the shaft, unless it could be shown that he had neglected to take all reasonable precautions for mitigating the annoyance to his neighbours. 1 Citers Â Cowley v Newmarket Local Board [1892] AC 345 1892 HL Lord Halsbury Nuisance, Negligence No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants. Lord Halsbury said: "We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention." 1 Citers Â Â Rapier v London Tramways Co; 1893 - [1893] 2 Ch 588 Â Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316 1893 Nuisance A music teacher gave lessons at home and from time to time held noisy parties. He complained of nuisance when his neighbour retaliated by blowing whistles, banging trays and trying to disturb the music. Held: The defendant's actions were deliberate and unreasonable. The motives of the party whose actions are alleged to constitute an actionable nuisance are relevant to the question whether there is such a nuisance. 1 Citers Â Black v The Christchurch Finance Company Limited [1893] UKPC 60; [1894] AC 48 16 Dec 1893 PC Lord Shand Commonwealth, Nuisance (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 operation is bound to use all reasonable precautions to prevent the fire extending to his neighbour's property (sic utere tuo at alienum non laedas)." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Thompson v Brighton Corporation [1894] 1 QB 332 1894 CA Nuisance A manhole cover became exposed as the road surface eroded, causing injury. Held: The Corporation were not liable. 1 Citers Â Â Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co; 1894 - [1894] 70 LT 547 Â Lemmon v Webb [1895] AC 1; [1894] UKHL 1 27 Nov 1894 HL Lord Heschell LC Nuisance, Torts - Other 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. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Saunders v Holborn District Board of Works [1895] 1 QB 6 1895 QBD Charles J, Mathew J Nuisance, Negligence Mr Saunders was injured when he slipped on an icy pavement, and claimed damages. Held: A breach of the duty to remove snow did not give rise to a private law cause of action, any more than a breach of the duty to maintain the highway. Before the 1891 Act (Charles J) "it was not the duty of the sanitary authority to take any steps to clear the streets of ice and snow." It was a duty, which "formerly rested upon the householders." (Mathew J) 1 Citers Â Chastey v Ackland [1895] 2 Ch 389; [1895] 64 L J QB 523; [1895] 72 LT 845; [1895] 43 WR 627; [1895] 11 TLR 460; [1895] 39 Sol Jo 582 1895 CA Lopes LJ, Lindley LJ Nuisance, Land 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 granted an injunction against the new building. Held: on appeal, that since the defendant was not the originator of the nuisance, the stagnation air caused by the new building was not actionable either as interference with an easement or as a nuisance. The injunction was discharged. A right to air from particular direction can be established by immemorial user, though not by prescription. Lindley LJ said: "speaking generally, apart from long enjoyment, or some grant or agreement, no one has a right to prevent his neighbour from building on his own land, although the consequence may be to diminish or alter the flow of air over it on to land adjoining. So to diminish a flow of air is not actionable as a nuisance." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux's Brewery Co v Same [1895] 1 Ch 287; [1891-4] All ER Rep 838; (1895) 64 LJ Ch 216; (1895) 72 LT 34; (1895) 12 R 112 1895 CA Lindley LJ, A L Smith LJ Nuisance, Damages, Land 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 light. The fact that the wrongdoer is in some sense a public benefactor has never been considered a sufficient reason to refuse an injunction against a nuisance he creates. The Act which gave the Courts of Equity a discretion to award damages in place of an injunction did not thereby alter the rules on the grant of injunctions, and where an injunction was a proper remedy, the use of the discretion was not to be used to excuse wrong doing. A party with the benefit of a restrictive covenant is, as a general rule, entitled to an injunction on the trial of the action as distinct from an award of damages unless (1) the injury to the plaintiff's legal rights is small, (2) it is capable of being estimated in terms of money, (3) it can adequately be compensated for by a small payment and (4) it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction. AL Smith LJ said: "Many judges have stated, and I emphatically agree with them, that a person by committing a wrongful act (whether it be a public company for public purposes or a private individual) is not thereby entitled to ask the court to sanction his doing so by purchasing his neighbour's rights, by assessing damages in that behalf, leaving his neighbour with the nuisance, or his lights dimmed, as the case may be. In such cases the well known rule is not to accede to the application, but to grant the injunction sought, for the plaintiff's legal right has been invaded, and he is prima facie entitled to an injunction. There are, however, cases in which this rule may be relaxed, and in which the damages may be awarded in substitution for an injunction as authorized by this section. In any instance in which a case for an injunction has been made out, if the plaintiff by his acts or laches has disentitled himself to an injunction the court may award damages in its place. So again, whether the case be for a mandatory injunction or to restrain a continuing nuisance, the appropriate remedy may be damages in lieu of an injunction, assuming a case for an injunction to be made out. In my opinion, it may be stated as a good working rule that - (1) If the injury to the plaintiff's legal rights is small, (2) And is one which is capable of being estimated in money, (3) And is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment, (4) And the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction: - then damages in substitution for an injunction may be given. There may also be cases in which, though the four above-mentioned requirements exist, the defendant by his conduct, as, for instance, hurrying up his buildings so as if possible to avoid an injunction, or otherwise acting with reckless disregard to the plaintiff's rights, has disentitled himself from asking that damages may be assessed in substitution for an injunction. It is impossible to lay down any rule as to what, under the differing circumstances of each case, constitutes either a small injury, or one that can be estimated in money, or what is a small money payment, or an adequate compensation, or what would be oppressive to the defendant. This must be left to the good sense of the tribunal which deals with each case as it comes up for adjudication. For instance, an injury to the plaintiff's legal right to light to a window in a cottage represented by Â£15 might well be held to be not small but considerable; whereas a similar injury to a warehouse or other large building represented by ten times that amount might be held to be inconsiderable. Each case must be decided upon its own facts; but to escape the rule it must be brought within the exception. In the present case it appears to me that the injury to the plaintiff is certainly not small; nor is it in my judgment capable of being estimated in money, or of being adequately compensated by a small money payment." Lindley LJ said: 'Ever since Lord Cairns' Act was passed the Court of Chancery has repudiated the notion that the Legislature intended to turn that court into a tribunal for legalizing wrongful acts: or in other words, the Court has always protested against the notion that it ought to allow a wrong to continue simply because the wrondgoer is able and willing to pay for the injury he may inflict. Neither has the circumstance that the wrondoer is in some sense a public benefactor (eg a gas or water company or a sewer authority) ever been considered a sufficient reason for refusing to protect by injunction an individual whose rights are being persistently infringed. Expropriation, even for a money consideration, is only justifiable when Parliament has sanctioned it.' and "Without denying the jurisdiction to award damages instead of an injunction, even in cases of continuing actionable nuisances, such jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in such cases except under very exceptional circumstances. I will not attempt to specify them, or to lay down rules for the exercise of judicial discretion. It is sufficient to refer, by way of example, to trivial and occasional nuisances: cases in which a plaintiff has shown that he only wants money; vexatious and oppressive cases; and cases where the plaintiff has so conducted himself as to render it unjust to give him more than pecuniary relief. In all such cases as these, and in all others where an action for damages is really an adequate remedy - as where the acts complained of are already finished - an injunction can be properly refused." Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (Lord Cairns' Act) 1 Citers Â Â Mayor of Bradford v Pickles; HL 29-Jul-1895 - [1895] AC 587; [1895] UKHL 1 Â Hudson v Cripps [1896] 1 Ch 265 1896 Nuisance 1 Citers Â Â Robinson v Workington Corporation; CA 1897 - [1897] 1 QB 619 Â Â Millard v Wastall; 1898 - [1898] 1 QB 342 Â Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387 1898 HL Earl of Halsbury LC Nuisance, Litigation Practice, Health Where an Act creates an obligation, and enforces the performance in a specified manner, it is a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. Earl of Halsbury LC said: "The principle that where a specific remedy is given by a Statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a remedy of any other form of remedy than that given by the Statute, is one which is very familiar and which runs through the law. I think Lord Tenterden accurately states that principle in the case of Doe v. Bridges . ." Public Health Act 1875 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Jordeson v Sutton, Southcotes and Drypool Gas Co [1899] 2 Ch 217 1899 Nuisance, Utilities The defendants owned land adjacent to that of the plaintiff's. Both plots were buillt over a deep substratum of wet sand, known as 'running silt'. The defendants, in order to continue a development, drained the running silt under their own land, but this in turn led to subsidence in the plaintiff's land as the silt collapsed. By statute the defendant was protected from liability in nuisance. Held: The withdrawal of the support by draining the silt was a nuisance actionable at law, and the Act did not protect the defendant in these circumstances. Gas Works Clauses Act 1871 9 Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Nuisance - From: 1849 To: 1899