Nuisance

Robinson v Kilvert (1889)

A claimant operated a business in the same premises as the defendant. The claimant stored an amount of heat sensitive paper in their part of the business premises. The heat emitted from the defendant's part of the premises damaged the claimant's paper. The court held that the claimant's paper was abnormally sensitive and ordinary paper would have been unaffected. Therefore, there was no nuisance.

Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

A doctor complained that his surgery was disturbed by the noise and vibrations coming from the defendant's premises which were being used for the manufacture of confectionary. Thesiger LJ: What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey. The defendant may try to argue that the claimant should not be able to complain about a nuisance which was present when the claimant moved to their property. However, this will not justify the commission of a nuisance. The court held: It would be on the other hand in an equal degree unjust, and, from a public point of view, inexpedient that the use and value of the adjoining land should, for all time and under all circumstances, be restricted and diminished by reason of the continuance of acts incapable of physical interruption, and which the law gives no power to prevent. The smith in this case supposed might protect himself by taking a sufficient curtilage to ensure what he does from being at any time an annoyance to his neighbour, but the neighbour himself would be powerless in the matter. Individual cases of hardship may occur in the strict carrying out of the principle upon which we found our judgment, but the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship, and would at the same time produce a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes. The defence of 20 years' prescription may apply, but it is not the length of time the activity has been ongoing, but the length of time the claimant could have complained. The confectionary had been in existence for well over 20 years but it had only become a nuisance when the claimant doctor's consulting rooms had been built near the nuisance. Consequently, the defence of prescription was not available.

Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC [2000]

A duty to abate a natural occurring nuisance is subject to the means of the occupier, who will not be expected to bankrupt themself in the process of averting the nuisance.

Corby Group Litigation v Corby District Council [2009]

A higher number than average of birth defects in the local population occurred in an area where the defendant council had permitted lorries to carry uncovered waste across the city over a number of years. Although the claims were mostly based on general negligence, the court confirmed that this also amounted to a public nuisance.

Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999]

A landlord will not usually be liable for a private nuisance unless they have created it or authorised it, or knew or ought to have known of the nuisance at the time of letting the property, or if they have expressly or impliedly reserved the right to enter and repair.

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council [1999]

A landlord will not usually be liable for a private nuisance unless they have created it or authorised it, or knew or ought to have known of the nuisance at the time of letting the property, or if they have expressly or impliedly reserved the right to enter and repair. The defendant had failed to remove travellers who had encamped on its land and caused nuisances against neighbouring farmers. The court refused to strike out a claim in nuisance by neighbouring land owners. It was arguable that a land owner can be liable for repeated acts constituting nuisance committed from its land by those it knew were in occupation, and where no steps were taken to evict them. It was its own land from which a continuing nuisance emanated.

Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum [1954]

A more specific definition than that given in PYA Quarries is difficult given the variety of acts that potentially could amount to public nuisances. Lord Denning: Public nuisance 'covers a multitude of sins, great and small'.

Hatton v United Kingdom (2003)

A number of residents living near to Heathrow Airport brought an action against the UK with regards to noise emanating from Heathrow night flights. There had previously been a JR of the matter and the government had altered the basis on which it calculated the amount of night flights that there should be. However, although the basis of the calculation had been changed to comply with legal requirements, the amount of night flights allowed had not changed as a result. The claimants' action before the ECtHR was for loss occasioned, firstly, by the noise (Art 8) and secondly, by the inadequacy of JR as a remedy (Art 13). The ECtHR agreed that the government had struck a correct balance between the needs of the individual landowner and the public (economic) interest generally but that the domestic remedies available to the applicant had been inadequate. The applicants were awarded costs.

Attorney General of Ontario v Orange (1971)

A pop festival was held to be a public nuisance.

Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano [1921]

Acid is an example of something likely to do mischief if it escapes (Rylands). An explosives factory was considered to be a non-natural use of land.

Bellew v Irish Cement [1948]

An Irish court placed the interests of the individual owner over the public good when it ordered the closure of a cement works causing a nuisance, despite the fact that it was the only cement factory in Ireland and building was an urgent public necessity at the time.

R v Shorrock [1993]

An acid house party was held to be a public nuisance. The court commented: Such was the degree of disturbance that during the event the local police received approximately 275 telephone complaints, some coming from persons living as much as four miles from the field.

Matania v National Provincial Bank [1936]

An occupier can, in rare circumstances, be held liable for nuisances caused by their independent contractors. An occupier was liable for the foreseeable excessive noise and dust caused by contractors altering their property. This is unusual in that building work does not normally form the basis of a private nuisance claim (Bamford).

Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather [1994]

As with negligence, recovery can only be made for damage that is reasonably foreseeable. This is an important authority for private nuisance, though it was eventually decided under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In private nuisance: although liability has usually been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of the nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principle of reasonable user... The effect is that, if the user is reasonable, the defendant will not be liable for consequent harm to his neighbour's enjoyment of his land; but if the user is not reasonable, the defendant will be liable, even though he may have exercised reasonable care and skill to avoid it. The HoL found that in order for the defendant to be held liable under Rylands, he must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that the something, which escaped, could cause damage were it to do so. Some academics see this as an inroad into the principle of strict liability. However, even if the defendant has taken reasonable care to prevent the escape and damage, he will still be liable if he fulfils the requirements for the operation of the rule. What has to be foreseen is the damage, not the escape, so strict liability does still apply. The defendant had stored chemicals on his land and had not realised that they were escaping and polluting the claimant's water supply. The defendant tried to argue that in the present day, chemicals in a factory or on an industrial estate were a natural use. The HoL rejected this, stating that the storage of chemicals is an 'almost classic case' of non-natural user. In the light of this case, it would appear that the rule in Rylands amounts to no more than an extension of private nuisance.

Rose v Miles (1815)

Blocking a canal was held to be a public nuisance. In public nuisance it is possible to claim for pure economic loss. The blocked canal caused the claimant extra cost in transporting goods across land.

AG v Cory Bros Ltd [1921]

Colliery spoil is an example of something likely to do mischief if it escapes (Rylands).

Transco v Stockport MBC [2003]

Damages for personal injury cannot be claimed in private nuisance. The HoL, following Rickards, stated that the piping of water for domestic use to the defendant's block of flats was not a non-natural use of the land and, therefore, the rule in Rylands did not apply. Lord Bingham was of the opinion that Rylands could only be engaged where the defendant's use was shown to be extraordinary and unusual. The requirements of non-natural use and the concept of dangerousness, as cited in many cases, were said to be intertwined. This confirmed that the claimant in Rylands needs a proprietary interest, as the rule is a sub-species of private nuisance. Therefore, it seems that personal injury will not be recoverable in Rylands, in line with the same restriction in private nuisance. The HoL were invited to dismiss the rule in Rylands but declined to do so. It was felt that such an action would leave a lacuna in the law.

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]

Despite the expansion in Khorasandjian v Bush, the fundamental requirement that the claimant have an interest in the land was restored. Private nuisance is a tort that relates specifically to land therefore it is not possible to claim for personal injury. Not all interference with thhe enjoyment value can be claimed in private nuisance. The court refused to recognise a claim for interference with television reception caused by the erection of a large towerblock. This decision was also based on the fact that nothing had been emitted from the defendant's land. Due to this decision, a claimant in a private nuisance action must have an interest in land and this is now also true for the rule in Rylands. Therefore, it seems that personal injury will not be recoverable in Rylands, in line with the same restriction in private nuisance.

Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]

Even the defence of the nation was not sufficient public benefit for the court to find the flying of the Harrier jet fighters reasonable and not a nuisance. However, in these exceptional circumstances, the court stopped short of granting an injunction, and awarded damages only on the basis that the public benefit should not be at the cost of the individual. Noise will always be indirect interference. The reasoning behind an award of damages in private nuisance is that it is to compensate for the loss of the amenity value of the land. The claimants were awarded £950,000, which was the amount by which the value of their home had been depreciated by the aircraft noise. This action covered both a common law claim and one under HRA 1998. The owners of a stately home brought an action in private nuisance, and also under HRA for noise levels caused by Harrier jet fihgters during vertical take-off from a nearby RAF base. The flying took place from early in the morning to 11.00 at night and caused a noise described by one witness as 'particularly fearsome'. The claimants claimed a breach of Art 1, Protocol 1 (protection of property) and Art 8 in addition to private nuisance. The MOD argued the defence of public benefit applied to the claim in nuisance. The court held that the public interest required that the jets were allowed to continue to fly, although it was not just to impose the cost of the public interest upon individuals. In addition, the court found that the claimant's human rights had been infringed. Although the court declined to force the jets to stop, it decided that an appropriate assessment of damages under the common law principles would provide 'just satisfaction' under HRA 1998.

Read v Lyons [1946]

Explosives are an example of something likely to do mischief if they escape (Rylands). However, this claim failed. There must be an escape, i.e. the substance must escape from land over which the defendant has control to land where he does not have control. The claimant was injured by an explosion on the defendant's land so there was no element of 'escape'. An explosives factory was considered to be a natural use of land, unlike in Rainham, showing how times change. It was suggested that, since Rylands had developed from the law of private nuisance, it was necessary for the claimant to have an interest in land.

Castle v St Augustine's Link (1922)

Golf balls being hit onto the highway were held to be a public nuisance.

Peter v Prince of Wales Theatre [1943]

If the claimant has agreed to the accumulation of the material by the defendant, there will be no liability under the rule in Rylands. Consent can be implied if the substance has been accumulated for the common benefit of the claimant and defendant.

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936]

If the defendant can point to no real justification for their actions as their aim is solely to annoy the claimant, this will normally constitute a nuisance. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of malice. The neighbour objected to the farm and got his son to fire his gun with the intention of scaring the foxes. The fact that the animals were sensitive was held to have no application because the defendant had acted with malice.

Christie v Davey [1893]

If the defendant can point to no real justification for their actions as their aim is solely to annoy the claimant, this will normally constitute a nuisance. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of malice. Two families lived in a semi-detached house. In one side lived a music teacher who practised instruments. On the other lived an engraver, who reciprocated the noise by banging on the walls, etc. The noise was similar but the motive behind it was different. There was a reason for the former's activity - it was her job.

Farrer v Nelson

If the defendant has behaved in an excessive manner, this may indicate that they are being unreasonable and creating a nuisance. Here, the defendant owned hundreds of pheasants.

Andrae v Selfridge [1938]

If the defendant has shown lack of care, this is likely to coutn in the claimant's favour.

Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co (1872)

If the escape has been caused wholly by the claimant's actions, then he will be unable to complain. The claimant dug under the defendant's canal and caused it to flood his land. If the claimant's acts were merely contributory there may be shared liability. This defence was recognised by Blackburn J in Rylands.

McKinnon Industries v Walker [1951]

If the hypothetical reasonable occupier would be affected, the claimant can claim for the full extent of their injuries and irritation, even though these are increased by their sensitivity. The metal factory was close to the claimant's house, which was also used as a florist. Orchids are particularly sensitive to fumes. However, the claim succeeded because other things would have been damaged too.

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940]

If the nuisance was created by a trespasser, the occupier would only be liable if they continued or adopted the nuisance. A water pipe that had been unlawfully put under the defendant's land and leaked gave rise to liability. The defendant had used the poorly maintained pipe and was liable when water leaked onto the claimant's land, even though the pipe had been laid by the local authority. However, an occupier may escape liability if they take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance. A flood of water was held to be capable of constituting a private nuisance. This is indirect interference with the use of enjoyment of the claimant's land. A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. But it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society.

Tate and Lyle v GLC [1983]

In public nuisance, the individual claimant need not have an interest in the land. The claimant was able to recover the cost of dredging the river approach to a jetty it used which had silted up because the defendants had built a new ferry terminal, even though the claimant did not own the river affected.

Spicer v Smee [1946]

It may be that a single incident could be a nuisance if it illustrates an underlying state of affairs. A fire started in a bungalow that had defective wiring and it spread to the claimant's property. Although the fire was an isolated incident, the defective wiring, which had continued for some time (and which the defendant was under an obligation to keep in good repair), amounted to a dangerous underlying state of affairs. The use of the land caused the loss and this was continuous - the fire could have occurred at any time.

Stannard v Gore [2012]

It must be the substance that was collected by the defendant that escapes (in Rylands). The defendant stored a large number of tyres on his property. These caught fire and the fire spread to the claimant's neighbouring property. The rule in Rylands did not apply because it was not the tyres that escaped.

Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012]

It was confirmed that although public benefit is a factor to be weighed up when balancing 'give and take', it is not to be given too much significance. The judge at first instance was criticised in the CoA for his decision that a permit to dispose of waste was a defence to a claim for private nuisance. The CoA confirmed that, as with planning permission, the permit per se would not authorise the commission of the nuisance, and that the reasonableness of the defendant's behaviour still had to be determined.

Wandsworth Borough Council v Railtrack plc [2001]

It was held that pigeons roosting under a bridge owned by the defendants amounted to a public nuisance, and the defendants were required to 'pigeon-proof' the bridge as a prevention measure.

Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2012]

It was held that while planning permission did not authorise the nuisance, planning permission followed by the carrying out of the permitted activity over time may have the effect of changing the character of the locality.

Kennaway v Thompson

It was stated that it will be important to see when the alleged nuisance takes place, how long it continues and how frequently it is repeated. When deciding upon the remedy, the court may take the public benefit factor into account. The court may try to strike a balance by ordering a partial injunction to limit the time and frequency of the activity rather than preventing it completely. There were few places where such motorboat racing could be held and it was massively popular. However, it was very noisy and went on for a long time. The court reduced the time they were allowed to race for.

Miller v Jackson [1977]

It would be wrong to expect the claimant to bear too great a burden for the benefit of the public at large. The court refused an injunction because of the public benefit factor in this case and granted an order for compensation only. The defendant may try to argue that the claimant should not be able to complain about a nuisance which was present when the claimant moved to their property. However, this will not justify the commission of a nuisance. The defence of 20 years' prescription may apply, but it is not the length of time the activity has been ongoing, but the length of time the claimant could have complained. Consequently, the defence of prescription was not available.

British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd [1969]

Metal foil strips blown from the defendant's factory came into contact with an electricity substation causing a power failure which stopped the claimant's machines, resulting in wasted materials and time. The claimant alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the likely consequences of the escape, because a similar occurrence had taken place three years ago and the defendant had received a warning from the electricity board. The court held that an isolated happening by itself could create an actionable nuisance, especially where the happening was not the first occurrence. Lawton J said that the claimant in a Rylands action need not be the occupier of any land.

Watson and others v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd [2009]

Planning permission to build a motor circuit was held not to have changed the nature of the rural area, even after the circuit had been running for over 40 years. The court disapproved of the approach of Miller and Kennaway towards the public benefit factor when deciding on a remedy. It stated that refusing an injunction and granting damages in lieu of an injunction should only apply in exceptional circumstances.

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

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance but it may alter the character of the area, for example, from residential to industrial so that what was once a nuisance in that area is no longer a nuisance as the area has changed or vice versa.

Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1996]

Planning permission will not authorise a nuisance. A grant of planning permission under statutory powers is not the same as statutory authority and will not have the effect of a licence to commit a nuisance.

Bamford v Turnley (1862)

Private nuisance has been defined as: Any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's land or his use or enjoyment of that land. People are expected to put up with a certain amount of 'give and take' or 'live and let live' in their daily living. The claimant must show that the nuisance they are complaining of constitutes 'unlawful interference with his enjoyment or use of the land'. People became ill due to fumes. The defendant wasn't doing anything remarkable on the land but this was held to be unreasonable due to the effect on the claimant (this is an unusual tort in that the effect on the claimant is considered).

Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957]

Public nuisances are: acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. Dust and vibrations from the defendant's quarry were held to be sufficiently widespread in their effect for them to be a public nuisance.

LMS International and Others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation [2005]

Successful actions under Rylands are a rarity.

Nor-Video Service v Ontario Hydro (1978)

The Canadian courts take a more liberal view and consider that interference with television reception can constitute a nuisance.

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping

The HoL distinguished between two types of damage which are recoverable in private nuisance: a) physical damage to property b) sensible personal discomfort (SPD) SPD was defined as: The personal inconvenience and interference with one's enjoyment, one's quiet, one's personal freedom, anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves. It was stated that the character of a neighbourhood was not relevant when physical damage had been caused, as it could never be said that it would be reasonable to cause such damage owing to the nature of the locality. Therefore, this is only relevant in relation to SPD.

Leakey v National Trust [1980]

The National Trust was liable for a large mound of earth that it had accumulated on its land, which then collapsed onto the claimant's neighbouring land. Although aware of the hazard, the NT took no steps to prevent the harm from happening.

Adams v Ursell [1913]

The argument in Sturges v Bridgman was applied in this case, where fumes caused by a fish and chip shop were held to constitute a nuisance in a residential area. The judge, however, remarked: It does not follow that the defendant cannot carry on his business in another more suitable place somewhere in the neighbourhood. It by no means follows that, because a fried fish shop is a nuisance in one place, it is a nuisance in another. If the defendant's activities serve a useful purpose or benefit to the community, this will not mean that the defendant has not committed a nuisance. The court recognised that there was a public benefit in the fish and chip shop, when inexpensive hot food was a rarity. This consideration was, however, outweighed by the residential nature of the area where the shop was operating, and the interference with the claimant's use of land. The fumes were all day every day and very overpowering.

Khorasandjian v Bush [1993]

The claimant was an 18 year old woman who was being harassed by the defendant a 23 year old man. He had threatened her with violence, behaved aggressively when he saw her, shouted abuse at her, he would pester her with phone calls at her parents and grandparents house. The defendant appealed against the injunction on the ground that the judge had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction as harassing, pestering or communicating did not constitute any tort known to law. Whilst the persistent telephone calls were capable of constituting the tort of nuisance, the claimant did not have an interest in the land and therefore had no cause of action in tort law. His appeal was dismissed.

Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall County Council [2013]

The court will consider what steps it is fair, just and reasonable to expect the defendant to take considering the resources available to both the defendant and the claimant, and must take into account the competing demands and public purpose of the funds of public authority defendants.

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)

The courts will examine whether a breach of the rule in Rylands was authorised by statute. If so, this will be a defence. Much will depend upon the construction of the statute.

Thomas v NUM [1986]

The creator of the nuisance can be sued even though they may not be in a position to end the nuisance and even though they may not be the occupier of the land. (The occupier, owner or creator can be sued)unt Though this is a public nuisance case, the same principle applies to private nuisance. Picketing on the highway was held to be a public nuisance.

Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)

The defendant company's actions disturbed a neighbour's sleep by causing noise and vibrations as well as damaging clothes from acid smuts. Filling oil tankers at 10am was held to be reasonable, but the same activity undertaken at 10pm was unreasonable. A plaintiff who has standing to sue, including a member of the household of the landowner, should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels. The claimant could claim for damage made to his washing (private) but also through public nuisance because of damage made to his car, which was on a public road.

Hale v Jennings Bros [1938]

The defendant will escape liability if he can show that the situation arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control. The defence will only operate if the defendant has not been negligent.

Musgrove v Pandelis [1919]

The fact that times change is well illustrated in this case. It was held that storing a car with a full tank of petrol in a garage was a non-natural use of land. This was not subsequently followed in Cammidge v Young [1997].

McKenna v British Aluminium [2002]

The fundamental requirement that the claimant have an interest in the land came under scrutiny following the implementation of the HRA 1998. The issue was whether the requirement was an infringement of the right to a fair trial (Art 6) to enforce a right to respect for private and family life (Art 8). The claimants brought an action in nuisance and Rylands for damage caused by emissions, noise and pollution from the defendant's factory. The claimants also claimed under Protocol 1 and Art 8 for the ECHR. Many of them had no proprietary interest in the land. The defendant argued that, following Hunter and Cambridge Water, the claimants were prevented from bringing an action. The trial judge held that the claimants could not bring an action in nuisance/Rylands. However, the judge also acknowledged that the claimants had an arguable case that this restrictive requirement should be extended in the light of the HRA, so as to make the common law position compliant with the Convention. As such, the defendant's application to strike out was ultimately dismissed. Currently, it seems that where it is decided that a remedy is available under the common law, a remedy under HRA 1998 will not then be considered. However, where it may not be possible to claim under nuisance, it appears that there may still be a cause of action under HRA 1998.

Malone v Laskey (1907)

The land was occupier by a manager, who worked for the tenant, and his wife. The manager's wife (who had been injured when a toilet cistern fell on her) did not have any interest in the land, and so had no right to sue.

Goldman v Hargrave [1967]

The law had traditionally absolved the occupier from liability for naturally occurring nuisances or natural condition of the land. However, in this Australian case, the PC held an occupier liable for a natrually occurring nuisance where they knew or ought to have known of a danger and failed to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance.

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965]

The original position with regards to interference with broadcasting reception, confirmed in Hunter, was that such action could not constitute a private or public nuisance.

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

The thing that has been accumulated must have an additional quality of being for non-natural use (in Rylands). Lord Moulton: It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community. The claimant suffered damage when the defendant's sink overflowed because a trespasser had blocked it. The court said that a non-natural use constituted a use of land which posed an increased risk over and above that of a normal use, and which, in the circumstances, justified imposing liability on the defendant. As the defendant was making ordinary and proper use of the land, there was no liability. It was stressed that all the circumstances must be taken into account and that just because an earlier case found non-natural use, this would not categorise that item for all time. What was unacceptable at one stage in history might be commonplace and acceptable at a later date.

Charing Cross Electricity v Hydraulic Power [1914]

The weight of authority has taken the view that no interest in land is necessary for a Rylands claim. However, see Cambridge Water. The courts will examine whether a breach of the rule in Rylands was authorised by statute. If so, this will be a defence. Much will depend upon the construction of the statute.

Perry v Kendricks Transport [1956]

There has been some argument as to whether personal injury is recoverable under Rylands. The defendant will escape liability if he can show that the situation arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control. The defence will only operate if the defendant has not been negligent. Some children threw lit matches into the petrol tank of a caravan. The defendant was not liable as the escape (explosion, causing the claimant severe burns) was caused by the deliberate action of a third party.

Giles v Walker (1890)

There was no liability for the spread of thistles from the defendant's land under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as they grew there naturally, and had not been brought onto the land.

Rylands v Fletcher [1868]

This concerned the flooding of the claimant's mineshafts by water, which the defendant had collected in a reservoir on his property. Independent contractors had constructed the reservoir in such a way as to cause the water to flood the claimant's underlying mine. The defendant was not negligent in allowing the water to escape. However, Blackburn J held him to be liable: We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage that is the natural consequence of the escape. The HoL upheld the decision but also introduced into the 'rule' the requirement that the defendant's use should be a non-natural user of his land. The defendant will escape liability if he can show that the situation arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control.

Laws v Florinplace Ltd [1981]

This concerned the location of a 'sex shop' in a residential area, where men of sleazy disposition were considered to be a nuisance. The defendant bought a dress shop and turned it into a hardcore pornography shop. The nature of the business was held to form a nuisance in this area. An injunction was granted.

Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009]

This confirmed the position in Hunter - the claimant needs an interest in the land. The fundamental requirement that the claimant have an interest in the land came under scrutiny following the implementation of the HRA 1998. The CoA, despite McKenna, confirmed that the requirement of an interest in land still applies and is not in contravention of the HRA. The CoA also held that the availability of other remedies was relevant to the issue of whether dmaages to a person who did not have an interest in land but lived in the same household as another person who had an interest in land (e.g. the child) were necessary to afford 'just satisfaction' under s 8(3) HRA 1998. The court declined to confirm one way or the other whether the child of the claimant could sue under the HRA, as he could not claim in the tort of private nuisance.

Lemmon v Webb [1895]

This involved physical damage in private nuisance. Overhanging branches caused physical damage to the claimant's land. Abatement represents a 'self help' remedy. A claimant may, in certain circumstances, enter on to the land of another and take reasonable steps to prevent the nuisance continuing. Anything belonging to the defendant must be left on the property. This principle allows the claimant to cut down branches overhanging their land. Notice must usually be given of the claimant's intention to do this, though not in an emergency situation.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris [2004]

This shows a more flexible approach than Hunter of Bridlington Relay. Here the claimants argued that a railway signalling system, recently installed by the defendants, interfered with electric guitars being used in the claimant's recording studios. Buxton LJ was of the opinion that the courts should not be too strict in relying on the concept of abnormal sensitivity in nuisance claims. Lord Phillips MR doubted if the concept still existed. It was considered that such cases should be viewed in terms of foreseeability rather than abnormal sensitivity. It was also recognised that the use of electronic equipment was not a feature of modern life.

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]

This was a very fact-sensitive decision, where the holding of a firework display for 20 minutes (and the resulting fire from debris hitting a nearby barge) was held to be a nuisance. The court there held that where an activity creates a state of affairs which gives rise to the risk of escape of physically dangerous or damaging material, such as water, gas or fire, then the law of nuisance is, and should be, available to give a remedy in respect of that state of affairs, even if it is brief in duration.

Attorney General v Hastings Corporation (1950)

To be a public nuisance it is necessary to show that the effect of the nuisance is sufficiently widespread. There is no exact number of people who have to be affected for there to be a public nuisance. It will depends on the facts.

R v Rimmington [2005]

To be a public nuisance it is necessary to show that the effect of the nuisance is sufficiently widespread. There is no exact number of people who have to be affected for there to be a public nuisance. It will depends on the facts.

Nichols v Marsland (1876)

Unforeseeably high flooding, earthquakes and unusually violent storms are all examples of acts of God, which may provide a defence to a breach under Rylands.

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining [1981]

Where the defendant's activity is being carried out on the basis of statutory authority, they will escape liability if they have exercised all due care and the nuisance is an inevitable consequence of the activity.