Land Torts: Private Nuisance

Land Torts Overview

• Land torts protect a landowner's ability to use and enjoy their land without unwanted interference.
• They define the limits of permissible land use.
• Private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher will be discussed.

Private Nuisance Defined

• It safeguards a claimant's ability to use and enjoy their land without unreasonable interference from the defendant.
• It involves balancing the interests of neighboring landowners.
• Nuisance involves an indirect interference that causes actual physical damage to land (e.g., flooding, fumes)
• Interference with amenity interests, covering the use and enjoyment of land (e.g., smells, dust, noise)
• Encroachment (e.g., tree roots) and requires some kind of movement or emanation.

Establishing a Claim

• Determine if the claimant can bring a claim.
• Ascertain if there has been an actionable nuisance, meaning an unreasonable interference with the claimant's land use and enjoyment.
• Examine if the defendant has a valid defense.

Who Can Claim?

• Private nuisance claims are available only to those with interests in the land and for damage to those interests.

Malone v Laskey [1907]

• A claimant was injured when a toilet cistern fell due to vibrations from a generator on the defendant's property.
• The Court of Appeal held that that the claimant had no cause of action because she lacked a proprietary interest in the premises.
• The house belonged to her husband's employer, and she was merely present.
• One is unable to claim in private nuisance for personal injury.

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]

• Residents affected by the construction of the Canary Wharf tower claimed it interfered with their television reception.
• The tower was nearly 250 meters high, over 50 meters square, and had a metallic surface.
• The House of Lords held that interference with television reception wasn't capable of being a nuisance, as there was no emanation from the tower.
• Claims in nuisance can be brought only by those with an interest in the land, such as landowners or tenants.

Unreasonable Interference

• The defendant's actions need to amount to a nuisance so not every interference with land use is a nuisance.
• A balance must be maintained between the rights of the occupier and neighbor
• Was there an unreasonable interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of their land?

Lawton LJ in Kennaway v Thompson [1981]

• Nearly all people have to tolerate some annoyance from neighbours.
• Injunction intervention is justified only when the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond what other occupiers can bear.
• The question is whether the neighbor is using his property reasonably, with give and take.

Type of Damage

• Physical (tangible) damage to property is always considered unreasonable.
• For amenity (intangible) damage (e.g., loss of sleep, smells), courts consider and balance a matrix of factors.

St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping [1865]

• Poisonous vapours from the defendant's smelting works damaged trees on the claimant's estate.
• Held: Finding for C.
• Lord Westbury distinguished between nuisances causing material injury to property and those leading to personal discomfort (lost amenity).
• Injury to claimant's trees gave an action in nuisance regardless of whether the pollution was normal for the locality.

Physical vs Amenity Damage

• Distinction between amenity interests and physical damage is seen as a question of degree and can be difficult to define
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and another [2018]
• The presence of knotweed rhizomes was enough to cause interference as it imposed a burden on the owner.
• Claimants were entitled to damages for the diminution of their home values because of the knotweed

Amenity Damage

• In cases of amenity damage, factors to consider can be split into three categories:
  • Always (intensity - duration, frequency, timing, interference with a right)
  • Sometimes (dependent on the type of claim)
  • Sometimes (if relevant on the facts - sensitivity of the claimant, bad intention of the defendant)
• The courts will then balance if D unreasonably interfered with C's interest in land

Kennaway v Thompson [1981]

• Claimant complained that noise from power-boat racing near her home was a nuisance.
• The Court of Appeal held that it was a nuisance, awarding a partial injunction requiring the organizers to adhere to a timetable.

Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023]

• Claimants lived in flats overlooked by a viewing platform owned by the Tate Modern.
• Visitors could see directly into the flats' living areas, often taking photos and posting them online.
• Claimants sought an injunction or damages. The UKSC held there was an actionable nuisance, as the constant observation was a substantial interference

Nature of the Locality

• The nature of the locality is sometimes considered.
• What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not be so in Bermondsey
• The locality principle applies only in cases where C has suffered lost amenity.
• Not a relevant consideration where the claim is material physical damage.

Tangible and Intangible

• A high level of intangible interference may not amount to a nuisance, depending on the locality's nature.
• Tangible interference can never be justified by the nature of the locality.

Fearn - Dissent

• Inner city occupiers should expect less privacy than rural occupiers.
• Any intrusion must be considered of reasonableness.
• The locality justified the intrusion so The dissenting judges in the UKSC agreed

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993]

• Royal Naval Dockyard was converted into a 24-hour commercial port.
• Residents complained about traffic.
• Held that nature of the locality had changed and they could not claim because of commercial operations.

Planning Permission

• Planning permission is not a defense to nuisance.
• Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] D obtained planning permission to extend pig sties on his farm to annoy C.
• Despite planning permission, the smell emanating from the pig farm amounted to an actionable private nuisance.

Sensitivity of C

• If a claimant's use and enjoyment of land is affected because of their own sensitivities, the claim will fail.
• An ordinary person would not be so affected - (Heath v Mayor of Brighton [1908])
• However, once established that a non-sensitive claimant would have been affected, the claimant will receive damages for all losses.
• The test is if to foresee that would be caused to a specific claimant.

Sometimes Considered: Motive - Christie v Davey [1893]

• C was a music teacher complained by D.
• D created disturbances to annoy the noises coming from C's house.
• C won against D, because acted only for the purpose of annoyance as was not a legitimate use

Establishing a Claim in Private Nuisance

• Can C bring a claim in private nuisance?
• Is there an actionable nuisance
• Does D have a defense?

Defenses to Nuisance

• Prescription
• Act of a stranger
• Statutory authority

Prescription: Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

• C, a doctor, built consultation room. D operated as confectioner. Noise interfered with C. C sued.
• The time ran only from when it began to be a nuisance which after the consulting room had been built by the doctor.
• The court also viewed as an ineffective defense.

Act of Stranger: Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940]

• A pipe on D's land constructed by local authority drained a ditch. C's land flooded, pipe became blocked.
• D had done nothing to rectify the problem.
• Ds were liable because they had 'continued or adopted’ an existing nuisance

Statutory Authority: Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981]

• The expansion of Gulf Oil was authorized.
• Residents argued the noise and vibrations caused unreasonable disturbance.
• The refinery's operations were implicitly authorized by statute, the nuisance was inevitable.

Ineffective Defenses

• Public/ social Utility of D's activities
• Coming to the Nuisance

Miller v Jackson [1977]

• C brought a house next door to a cricket club. Cricket balls where hit into C's garden. C sued in nuisance.
• Held(CA): Cricket constituted an actionable nuisance.
• Refused to award an injunction rather granting damages on the grounds of the community interests outweighed by the personal interests of C.

Remedies

• Injunction
• An injunction seeks to prevent the part of D's activity that amounts to a nuisance
• Usual remedy (unless damages more suitable)

Coventry v Lawrence [2014]

• Claimants moved into a bungalow less than 1km from a speedway stadium.
• They sought an injunction to stop the activities taking place, which they claimed amounted to a nuisance.
• Held: Noise amounted to a Nuisance.
• Where C has established a nuisance, C is entitled to an injunction.
• However, the count choose not to award one, and award cost damage instead.

Rylands v Fletcher Rule

• Protects an occupier against interference due to an isolated escape from his/her neighbor's land.
• Provides for strict liability.
• Transco stated, the rule should be viewed as a sub-set of private nuisance.
• Not possible to claim for personal injury
• Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
• Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
• Transco v Stockport MBC [2004]

Rylands v Fletcher [1868]

• D built a reservoir on his land to provide water for his mills.
• When the reservoir was filled, the water in it burst through the old shafts and flooded C's mine.
• C sought compensation.
• Held: the person who brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it.

Establishing a Claim

• D brings on his land for his own purposes something likely to do mischief.
• if it escapes
• Which represents a non-natural use of land
• Which causes foreseeable damage

D Brings on his Land

• Anything might suffice and Intertwined with question of non-natural use.
• Should appreciate an exceptionally high risk of danger.
• Must be be shown the the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the a exceptionallhy high risk.

Transco v Stockport

• D owned a block next to block of flats. pipe carrying leak caused collapse.
• 1. D could to have foreseen that there was an exceptionally high risk of danger. Should .water escape
• The provision of pipe water was a natural use.

Something Likely to do Mischief

• The test as to what is likely to do mischief is strict.
• Liabitly will only arise if .Land brings onto his land somethin
• (i)which Dr eorganised (or should have recognises) judge by
• (ii) thatd Dr eorganised (ought to ahave recognise

If it Escapes- Read v Lyons [1947]

• C , who was a munitions inspector was injured .the when the artillery went of during the manfactruing pross
• Hledd there hass been one. escape"the shell had had not lefto"s. Had she stepped over she what had be able ti succes
• Escape, where, the substant or other causing damage actually has in from and d's .

...Which Represents

• Not just because using .m just be .

Cambridge Water Co Ltd

• . . and on his way off of and can take.
• he there has been even though over period and was cause b. . and and and off ,
• but the one does not cover.

###. . .. and of the one off time.

• Has has Been One off with by of and

Defenses

• stat authority
• .
• . --
• .