Rich v Basterfield: 3 Jul 1947

Although the owner of property may, as occupier, be responsible for injuries arising from acts done upon that property by persons who are there by his permission, though not strictly his agents or servants, such liability attaches only upon parties in actual possession. – Where, therefore, an action was brought against A., the owner of premises, for a nuisance arising from smoke issuing out of a chimney, to the prejudice of the plaintiff in his occupation of an adjoining messuage, on the ground that A, having erected the chimney, and let the premises with the chimney so erected, had impliedly authorised the lighting to a fire therein. Held that the action would not lie. Held, also, that, inasmuch as the premises were in the occupation of B a tenarit, at the time the fires were lighted, A. was entitled to a verdict on a pIea of ‘not possessed,’ the allegation as to possession, having reference to the time when the nuisance complained of was committed, and not to the time at which the chimney was erected.


[1847] EngR 693




England and Wales


Appeal fromRich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.573095