Private Nuisance
- To sue in private nuisance, a claimant must have a legal interest in the land affected.
Hunter v Canary Wharf
- A person can be liable for a private nuisance which he did not create, if he adopts the activity in question.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan
- A person can be liable for a private nuisance which he does not create but which he authorises.
Tetley v Chitty
- Industrial activities are more likely to be a nuisance in a residential area.
Halsey v Esso
- Even in an industrial zone, a D does not have the right to carry out activities which inflict physical damage on his neighbour’s properties.
St Helens Smithing v Tipping
- Even a single incident can amount to a nuisance.
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
- A claim in private nuisance will fail if the C’s use of his land is so sensitive that even ordinary activities on the part of the D create an interference.
Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity
- A C can sue for the full extent of his loss, even though his use of his land is extra sensitive, if the D’s activities would have disturbed even a normal use.
McKinnon v Walker
- If an activity is in the public interest, the C may fail to win an injunction but may still win damages.
Dennis v MOD
- Malice on the part of the defendant can convert a lawful activity into an unlawful activity.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett and Christie v Davey
- A D will escape liability in private nuisance if his activities have been authorised by Parliament.
Allen v Gulf Oil
- A D will not escape liability in private nuisance simply because he was there before the C.
Sturgess v Bridgeman
- Whether an injunction is granted to stop a private nuisance will depend in part on balancing the interests of the parties and the community.
Miller v Jackson
- Damages for loss of use and enjoyment will be equivalent to the loss in value to the affected premises.
Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Only damages which are reasonably foreseeable can be claimed.
The Wagon Mound