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 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?’
Knight Bruce V-C
[1851] EngR 335, (1851) 4 De G and Sm 315, (1851) 64 ER 849
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .
Applied – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.184810