Thanyha Kirisanker
BTEC Applied Law
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
P6 M4 D3
Nuisance
Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land. There is no accountability
for personal damage because this is a tort against the land. In the case of Hunter v Canary
Wharf One Canada Square is a huge tower that was built in the Docklands neighbourhood of
East London. Its site was quite close (less than 10 kilometres) to the BBC's principal
television transmitter at Crystal Palace. By April 1991, the interference had been resolved
thanks to the construction of a broadcast relay at Balfron Tower. The claim in the lawsuit
asserted private annoyance for the duration of the interference. On such basis, 690 claims
were filed against Canary Wharf Ltd. In addition, 513 claims were filed against London
Docklands Development Corporation for damages caused by excessive dust from the
building site. It was determined that interference with one's television reception caused by
the construction of a neighbouring structure cannot and does not constitute an actionable
nuisance. Furthermore, it was determined that only claimants with property rights can bring
private nuisance lawsuits. Khorasanjian v Bush [1993] 3 WLR 476 was overturned in part
because it held that a mere licensee might initiate a private nuisance case. 1
The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land to be able to claim for nuisance.
This is demonstrated in the case of Malone v Laskey, where the claimant lived in a residence
owned by her husband's employment. The claimant's spouse was a renter, and she had a
permit to live there. The shaking in the house was produced by the neighbours' usage of an
electrical generator. As a result, the cistern became loosened and crashed on the claimant,
injuring her. As a result, she filed a nuisance lawsuit. The claimant resided in a residence
owned by her husband's employer. The claimant's spouse was a renter, and she had a
permit to live there. The shaking in the house was produced by the neighbours' usage of an
electrical generator. As a result, the cistern became loosened and crashed on the claimant,
injuring her. As a result, she filed a nuisance lawsuit. 2
Previously a quiet lake overlooked by a few cottages, Blackwater has recently been
developed by its owner, Sport life Developments, to provide extensive leisure
facilities, including swimming and powerboating. In consequence, the owners of the
cottages, including Ingrid, have experienced a large increase in noise, especially at
weekends and during frequent competition weeks, when traffic and parking
problems have also made it difficult for them to leave or return to their properties.
Additionally, damage to a diesel oil storage tank owned by Sport life Developments
resulted in a leak which caused extensive contamination of Ingrid’s vegetable
garden.
Ingrid and the cottage owners may have rights and remedies against Sport life.
Developments, under the tort of negligence, for the increased noise and traffic. It was held
that this was a tort against land and there is no liability for personal injury. To claim for
nuisance, the claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land
1
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/hunter-v-canary-wharf.php
2
https://simplestudying.com/malone-v-laskey-1907-2-kb-141/
1
, Thanyha Kirisanker
BTEC Applied Law
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
P6 M4 D3
In this case the owners of the cottages and Ingrid as they have proprietary interest in the
land as they are the owners of the cottages.
For a successful claim against the person creating the nuisance, the interference must be
substantial. The increase in noise appears to ongoing, especially at weekends and Sport life
Developments have frequent competitions.
To establish whether interference is unlawful it must be substantial and it must be
unreasonable. This is shown in the case of Southwark LBC v Mills (1999). Mills and Baxter
were tenants in the defendants' council houses. Their concerns were about the absence of
soundproofing in the flats, which meant they could hear their neighbours' daily activities
such as strolling across the floor, using the bathroom, and watching television. They filed
nuisance proceedings against the Council. It was determined that there was no annoyance.
The idea of nuisance is founded on the concept of a reasonable user. The apartments were
put to good use. The plaintiffs made no attempt to show that their neighbours made
excessive noise or acted in unacceptable ways. As a result, the council could not be held
accountable for authorising a nuisance that did not exist. 3
The character of the neighbourhood is one of the variables examined in determining
whether the nuisance is unreasonable. This is demonstrated in the case of Leeman v
Montague. However, the location is immaterial if physical harm to the land has occurred, as
demonstrated in the case of St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping.
In the case of Leeman v Montague, C bought a house adjacent to a farm owned by D in a
semi-rural area. D was a poultry breeder and housed over 750 cockerels in a nearby orchard
(around 90 metres away). C complained about the noise and sought an injunction.
In St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping, the claimant had a manor estate with 1300 acres of land
that was close to the defendant's copper smelting company. He filed a nuisance case against
the defendant for harm to their crops, trees, and greenery caused by the smelting activities.
There were several industrial firms in the area, including an alkali plant. The defendant
contended that the claimant's use of the land was appropriate given the location and the
existence of the smelting plant before the claimant bought the property. It was decided that
the location concept does not apply where there is physical harm to property. The fact that
the claimant arrived at the nuisance is not a defence.4
The environment and locality where Ingrid lives appear to be rural before Sport Life
Development expanded the region, indicating that the rise in noise is likely to be heightened
as there are now regular tournaments and plenty of noise, particularly on weekends.
The sensitivity of the claimant is also considered and is shown in the case of Robinson v
Kilvert. In the case of Robinson v Kilvert, the defendant carried on a business of making
paper boxes. This required a warm dry atmosphere. The defendant operated from the
basement of their premises and let out the ground floor to the claimant. The claimant used
3
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/London-Borough-of-Southwark-v-Mills.php
4
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/St-Helens-Smelting-Co-v-Tipping.php
2
BTEC Applied Law
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
P6 M4 D3
Nuisance
Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land. There is no accountability
for personal damage because this is a tort against the land. In the case of Hunter v Canary
Wharf One Canada Square is a huge tower that was built in the Docklands neighbourhood of
East London. Its site was quite close (less than 10 kilometres) to the BBC's principal
television transmitter at Crystal Palace. By April 1991, the interference had been resolved
thanks to the construction of a broadcast relay at Balfron Tower. The claim in the lawsuit
asserted private annoyance for the duration of the interference. On such basis, 690 claims
were filed against Canary Wharf Ltd. In addition, 513 claims were filed against London
Docklands Development Corporation for damages caused by excessive dust from the
building site. It was determined that interference with one's television reception caused by
the construction of a neighbouring structure cannot and does not constitute an actionable
nuisance. Furthermore, it was determined that only claimants with property rights can bring
private nuisance lawsuits. Khorasanjian v Bush [1993] 3 WLR 476 was overturned in part
because it held that a mere licensee might initiate a private nuisance case. 1
The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land to be able to claim for nuisance.
This is demonstrated in the case of Malone v Laskey, where the claimant lived in a residence
owned by her husband's employment. The claimant's spouse was a renter, and she had a
permit to live there. The shaking in the house was produced by the neighbours' usage of an
electrical generator. As a result, the cistern became loosened and crashed on the claimant,
injuring her. As a result, she filed a nuisance lawsuit. The claimant resided in a residence
owned by her husband's employer. The claimant's spouse was a renter, and she had a
permit to live there. The shaking in the house was produced by the neighbours' usage of an
electrical generator. As a result, the cistern became loosened and crashed on the claimant,
injuring her. As a result, she filed a nuisance lawsuit. 2
Previously a quiet lake overlooked by a few cottages, Blackwater has recently been
developed by its owner, Sport life Developments, to provide extensive leisure
facilities, including swimming and powerboating. In consequence, the owners of the
cottages, including Ingrid, have experienced a large increase in noise, especially at
weekends and during frequent competition weeks, when traffic and parking
problems have also made it difficult for them to leave or return to their properties.
Additionally, damage to a diesel oil storage tank owned by Sport life Developments
resulted in a leak which caused extensive contamination of Ingrid’s vegetable
garden.
Ingrid and the cottage owners may have rights and remedies against Sport life.
Developments, under the tort of negligence, for the increased noise and traffic. It was held
that this was a tort against land and there is no liability for personal injury. To claim for
nuisance, the claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land
1
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/hunter-v-canary-wharf.php
2
https://simplestudying.com/malone-v-laskey-1907-2-kb-141/
1
, Thanyha Kirisanker
BTEC Applied Law
Unit 7 Aspects of Tort
P6 M4 D3
In this case the owners of the cottages and Ingrid as they have proprietary interest in the
land as they are the owners of the cottages.
For a successful claim against the person creating the nuisance, the interference must be
substantial. The increase in noise appears to ongoing, especially at weekends and Sport life
Developments have frequent competitions.
To establish whether interference is unlawful it must be substantial and it must be
unreasonable. This is shown in the case of Southwark LBC v Mills (1999). Mills and Baxter
were tenants in the defendants' council houses. Their concerns were about the absence of
soundproofing in the flats, which meant they could hear their neighbours' daily activities
such as strolling across the floor, using the bathroom, and watching television. They filed
nuisance proceedings against the Council. It was determined that there was no annoyance.
The idea of nuisance is founded on the concept of a reasonable user. The apartments were
put to good use. The plaintiffs made no attempt to show that their neighbours made
excessive noise or acted in unacceptable ways. As a result, the council could not be held
accountable for authorising a nuisance that did not exist. 3
The character of the neighbourhood is one of the variables examined in determining
whether the nuisance is unreasonable. This is demonstrated in the case of Leeman v
Montague. However, the location is immaterial if physical harm to the land has occurred, as
demonstrated in the case of St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping.
In the case of Leeman v Montague, C bought a house adjacent to a farm owned by D in a
semi-rural area. D was a poultry breeder and housed over 750 cockerels in a nearby orchard
(around 90 metres away). C complained about the noise and sought an injunction.
In St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping, the claimant had a manor estate with 1300 acres of land
that was close to the defendant's copper smelting company. He filed a nuisance case against
the defendant for harm to their crops, trees, and greenery caused by the smelting activities.
There were several industrial firms in the area, including an alkali plant. The defendant
contended that the claimant's use of the land was appropriate given the location and the
existence of the smelting plant before the claimant bought the property. It was decided that
the location concept does not apply where there is physical harm to property. The fact that
the claimant arrived at the nuisance is not a defence.4
The environment and locality where Ingrid lives appear to be rural before Sport Life
Development expanded the region, indicating that the rise in noise is likely to be heightened
as there are now regular tournaments and plenty of noise, particularly on weekends.
The sensitivity of the claimant is also considered and is shown in the case of Robinson v
Kilvert. In the case of Robinson v Kilvert, the defendant carried on a business of making
paper boxes. This required a warm dry atmosphere. The defendant operated from the
basement of their premises and let out the ground floor to the claimant. The claimant used
3
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/London-Borough-of-Southwark-v-Mills.php
4
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/St-Helens-Smelting-Co-v-Tipping.php
2
