Nuisance

There continues to be uncertainties about the basis for suing under private nuisance - Justin Santiago

There has been a preference to sue under private nuisance because it is not based on fault and therefor is less difficult to prove. Private nuisance is the continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some rights over or in connection with it and as long as all these elements are present there is a valid case. However several cases have pointed to the limitations of this definition that makes it difficult to start an action under nuisance.

Because private nuisance is a tort against land, not against the person only those with rights to the land namely an interest in land or exclusive possession can sue.
It has never really been clear what amounts to a proprietary interest in land for the purposes of nuisance, and on closer inspection it is obvious that it isn't a particular helpful concept in general – Pemberton v Southwark LBC 2000 decided that a tenant, who had reverted to being a trespasser by his non-payment of rent, but was tolerated by the landowner, had standing to sue in nuisance.

In Khorasandjian v Bush the law of nuisance could be invoked by those who had a substantial link to the land, and this would include the relatives of landowners however Hunter v Canary Wharf reinstated the proprietary interest principle stated in Malone v Laskey that the claimants must have an interest in the land and must have exclusive possession tin their own right and overturned the decision to allow occupiers with a substantial link to the landowner to sue.

Although Hunter seems clear enough, there continue to be uncertainties about who has a right to sue in nuisance. The first problem arises from those cases where the courts have accepted that it is a nuisance to prevent someone getting access to land (rather than interfering with his use of that land). These cases have mostly arisen out of the actions of pickets on industrial disputes. In both Thomas v NUM [1986] Ch 20 and Newsgroup v SOGAT [1987] ICR 187 the courts accepted that pickets caused a nuisance by preventing non-striking workers getting into their places of work. In none of these cases had the victim of the nuisance had any proprietary interest in land; at best they were licencees. However, unlike Malone, these cases concerned rights of access to land, not right of enjoyment of land, and might represent a different species of nuisance.

Limiting who can sue to those with rights to land is contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which demands respect for private and family life, and if a person occupies his home as a licencee, or even as a trespasser, it seems that he should still be able to get the protection of the Article.

Another contentious point is the requirement for the interference to be continuous which is said to distinguish nuisance from negligence which can be based on a single event. In British Celanese v Hunt Capacitors 1969, the defendant's metal foil blew onto a power line and shut off power to the claimant's plant. This was a single event, but the defendants were liable. The reasoning was that the single event followed from an ongoing state of affairs (the inadequate storage of the foil). Then, in Leakey v National Trust 1980, the defendants were held liable for a (single) landslide onto the claimant's property. Again, the reasoning was that the defendant's land was defective, and had been so for a long time.

Additionally in deciding nuisance cases, the courts have to balance the right of the claimant to use his land, with the right of the defendant to use his. Not every trivial interference will amount to a nuisance. It must be a balancing exercise between rights of the claimant and other householders : Miller v Jackson. Factors to take into consideration :-

- defendant’s conduct in light of the circumstances
- nature of the locality – Sturges v Bridgman making a disruptive amount
of noise is more likely to be unreasonable in a quiet rural area than in
an industrial zone
- abnormal sensitivity – Robinson v Kilvert
- malicious – Christie v Davey, Holleywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet 1936, the defendant's shooting was perfectly lawful, and would not
have amounted to a nuisance had it not been done with malice.
- does not normally occur
- occurs at an unreasonable time
- objectives could have accomplished in a less intrusive manner
- dangerous
- natural nuisance recognised and the same duty of positive action on
the part of the occupier of the land was recognised – Leakey v
National Trust

Unsure what amenity interests are protected. In Tetley v Chitty 1986, noise from a go-kart track was held to be an actionable nuisance, as was the bad smell emanating form a pig farm in Bone v Seal 1975. But no action lay in the blocking of a view or prospect : AG v Doughty or prospect of TV and radio reception : Hunter v Canary Wharf.

If a loss of amenity resulting from personal discomfort can be actioned, then the courts have from time to time extended this head of liability to encompass actual personal injury. After all, it seems logical in a way that if discomfort is actionable, injury should be actionable. However, in Hunter v Canary Wharf the House of Lords doubted that personal injury could amount to a nuisance - nuisance is concerned with the rights in land, not with bodily integrity.

Although some losses of amenity value may be actionable, the courts have not accepted that all losses are so actionable. For example, in Hunter, interference with television reception was not held to amount to a nuisance. In a way this is strange, because many people would be deterred from owning land that did not obtain adequate television reception; this particular part of the Hunter decision has been rejected by some other common-law jurisdictions (e.g., in the Canadian Nor-Video case).

A further problem with the principle that loss of amenity is recoverable is that whether there is a loss of amenity will depend on what the claimant does on his land. If the defendant has the poor fortune to live next to someone who carries on a particular line of business, and the defendant's actions are deemed to reduce the amenity of the neighbouring land with respect to that business, then he will be liable. Admittedly the courts have been reluctant to impose liability where the claimant's activities are unsually sensitive to interference (e.g., Robinson v Kilvert 1889).

References

F.H. Newark in his article The Boundaries of Nuisance