Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
Need to know:
• Private nuisance
• Rylands v Fletcher
Private Nuisance
Private nuisance involves civil disputes between individuals. The most common example of a
nuisance would be a dispute between neighbours e.g. music being played too loud.
Definition
Nuisance is an ‘unreasonable interference with another’s use or
enjoyment of land’.
The claimant must prove: - 1. Indirect interference with enjoyment of land.
2. Damage to the claimant.
3. The interference was unreasonable.
1. Interference
The interference must be indirect (e.g. noise on one piece of land which affects the people
living next door) as opposed to direct interference where the defendant has come onto the
claimant’s land. The interference usually needs to be continuous, rather than a one-off.
Examples of interference include: smoke, noise, smell, roots etc.
A nuisance may occur naturally if the defendant knows about it and does not take
reasonable precautions:
Page 1
,Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
Leakey v National Trust (1980)
FACTS: The defendant owned land upon which was a naturally occurring mound. The
defendant took no precautions to prevent the mound causing a landslide onto the
neighbour’s land.
HELD: The defendant was liable in nuisance.
Compare the decision in Leakey v National Trust (1980) with this case:
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council (2000)
FACTS: The council’s land provided support for the claimant’s hotel. The hotel
collapsed when the council’s land slid.
HELD: The council had not taken reasonable precautions but they were not liable as
the damage was not foreseeable.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
FACTS: Local residents who lived near the Canary Wharf building in London found
that they no longer had very good television reception, as the building was so tall, it
caused interference.
HELD: The Court of Appeal decided however, that television reception was not a
right, just as people do not have the right to a view (Bland v Moseley (1587)).
Therefore, their claim failed.
2. Damage
There is no requirement for physical damage to have occurred for there to be a claim in
nuisance. Discomfort or inconvenience will be sufficient. However, a claim involving actual
Page 2
, Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
physical damage is much more likely to be successful and may allow a claim which would
otherwise fail.
St. Helens Smelting Co. Ltd v Tipping (1865)
FACTS: A copper-smelting factory, from which fumes and acid rain were omitted,
caused damage to the claimant’s trees and shrubs.
HELD: This claim was successful but it would not have been if there had been no
physical damage due to the locality of the claimant’s land (see below).
The normal rules of causation must be established when proving damage. The damage must
not be too remote and the test is based on the remoteness of damage test from the tort of
negligence (Wagon Mound).
3. Unreasonable
This requirement in nuisance tries to balance the conflicting interests between the claimant
and the defendant. The interference caused by the defendant must be unreasonable for a
claim to succeed.
Behaviour that goes beyond the normal bounds of reasonable behaviour will be
unreasonable.
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills (1999)
FACTS: The claimant bought a flat in a house that had been converted by the council.
She complained that she could hear the residents of the other flats and blamed the
council for not making the flats sound-proof.
HELD: The claim failed, as it was not unreasonable for the residents of flats to be
able to hear their neighbours making everyday noise.
The court will take into account: - Sensitivity, Locality, Duration and Malice.
Page 3
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
Need to know:
• Private nuisance
• Rylands v Fletcher
Private Nuisance
Private nuisance involves civil disputes between individuals. The most common example of a
nuisance would be a dispute between neighbours e.g. music being played too loud.
Definition
Nuisance is an ‘unreasonable interference with another’s use or
enjoyment of land’.
The claimant must prove: - 1. Indirect interference with enjoyment of land.
2. Damage to the claimant.
3. The interference was unreasonable.
1. Interference
The interference must be indirect (e.g. noise on one piece of land which affects the people
living next door) as opposed to direct interference where the defendant has come onto the
claimant’s land. The interference usually needs to be continuous, rather than a one-off.
Examples of interference include: smoke, noise, smell, roots etc.
A nuisance may occur naturally if the defendant knows about it and does not take
reasonable precautions:
Page 1
,Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
Leakey v National Trust (1980)
FACTS: The defendant owned land upon which was a naturally occurring mound. The
defendant took no precautions to prevent the mound causing a landslide onto the
neighbour’s land.
HELD: The defendant was liable in nuisance.
Compare the decision in Leakey v National Trust (1980) with this case:
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council (2000)
FACTS: The council’s land provided support for the claimant’s hotel. The hotel
collapsed when the council’s land slid.
HELD: The council had not taken reasonable precautions but they were not liable as
the damage was not foreseeable.
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
FACTS: Local residents who lived near the Canary Wharf building in London found
that they no longer had very good television reception, as the building was so tall, it
caused interference.
HELD: The Court of Appeal decided however, that television reception was not a
right, just as people do not have the right to a view (Bland v Moseley (1587)).
Therefore, their claim failed.
2. Damage
There is no requirement for physical damage to have occurred for there to be a claim in
nuisance. Discomfort or inconvenience will be sufficient. However, a claim involving actual
Page 2
, Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things
Factsheet
AQA - Tort
EBradbury.com
physical damage is much more likely to be successful and may allow a claim which would
otherwise fail.
St. Helens Smelting Co. Ltd v Tipping (1865)
FACTS: A copper-smelting factory, from which fumes and acid rain were omitted,
caused damage to the claimant’s trees and shrubs.
HELD: This claim was successful but it would not have been if there had been no
physical damage due to the locality of the claimant’s land (see below).
The normal rules of causation must be established when proving damage. The damage must
not be too remote and the test is based on the remoteness of damage test from the tort of
negligence (Wagon Mound).
3. Unreasonable
This requirement in nuisance tries to balance the conflicting interests between the claimant
and the defendant. The interference caused by the defendant must be unreasonable for a
claim to succeed.
Behaviour that goes beyond the normal bounds of reasonable behaviour will be
unreasonable.
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills (1999)
FACTS: The claimant bought a flat in a house that had been converted by the council.
She complained that she could hear the residents of the other flats and blamed the
council for not making the flats sound-proof.
HELD: The claim failed, as it was not unreasonable for the residents of flats to be
able to hear their neighbours making everyday noise.
The court will take into account: - Sensitivity, Locality, Duration and Malice.
Page 3
