THE BASIS OF LIABILITY IN PRIVATE NUISANCE

Topic of the day

- Injury and Interference under private nuisance

- Reasonableness of the conduct of the defendant under private nuisance

- Who can sue under private nuisance

- Who can be sued under private nuisance

- Defences of private nuisance

- Damages under private nuisance

INJURY AND INTERFERENCE UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE

Private nuisance law typically addresses two main types of harm. These includes;

1. Injury: This refers to physical harm or damage caused by the defendant's actions, such as pollution, noise, or vibrations that directly harm the plaintiff's property or person.

2. Interference: This involves the substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their property. This can include disturbances like excessive noise, noxious odors, or obstruction of light or air.

REASONABLENESS OF CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE

Under private nuisance law, the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct is a crucial factor in determining liability. This assessment often involves considering various factors, such as the nature of the defendant's activities, the location of the activities, the sensitivity of the plaintiff, and the social utility of the defendant's actions.

See the cases of Sturges v. Bridgman and Miller v. Jackson which illustrates the importance of balancing the rights of both parties where Sturges v. Bridgman established the principle that a plaintiff cannot complain of a nuisance if they come to the nuisance and Miller v. Jackson highlighted the significance of balancing the rights of individuals against the interests of the community when considering the reasonableness of conduct.

WHO CAN SUE UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE

Under private nuisance law, individuals who have a legal interest in the affected property or who suffer a particular harm as a result of the defendant's actions can typically sue. This includes property owners, tenants, and sometimes even individuals with a legal right to use the property, such as licensees or invitees.

See the cases of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd. and Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan which demonstrated the broad scope of potential plaintiffs in private nuisance actions. In Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd., the tenants were allowed to sue despite not being property owners, emphasizing the principle that anyone with a legal interest in the property affected by the nuisance may have standing to bring a claim while in Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, the case established that even a stranger who does not have a proprietary interest in the land can sue if they suffer harm due to the nuisance.

WHO CAN BE SUED UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE

Under private nuisance law, individuals or entities responsible for the creation or maintenance of the nuisance can be sued. This can include property owners, tenants, businesses, or even government entities.

See the cases of Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v. Morris which illustrated the potential defendants in private nuisance actions. In Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc, the leather manufacturer was held liable for contaminating the water supply, even though the pollution originated from their neighbor's property, demonstrating that both landowners and occupiers can be sued for private nuisance while in Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v. Morris, a public entity was held responsible for allowing Japanese knotweed to spread onto neighboring properties, further highlighting the potential liability of government entities in private nuisance cases.

DEFENCES OF PRIVATE NUISANCE

Defenses in private nuisance cases can include statutory authority, prescription, and coming to the nuisance. See the cases of Sturges v. Bridgman and Coventry v. Lawrence which exemplify various defenses. In Sturges v. Bridgman, the defense of coming to the nuisance was upheld, meaning that if the plaintiff moves to an area knowing about the existing nuisance, they cannot subsequently sue for it. Conversely, in Coventry v. Lawrence, the court rejected the defense of coming to the nuisance, holding that the defendant's use of his land constituted an unreasonable interference despite the plaintiff building a house in the vicinity.

DAMAGES UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE

Damages in private nuisance cases aim to compensate the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to the defendant's actions. These damages can include monetary compensation for property damage, loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience caused by the nuisance. See the cases of Robinson v. Kilvert and Christie v. Davey which exemplify the types of damages awarded in private nuisance actions. In Robinson v. Kilvert, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the loss of rental income and diminution of property value caused by the defendant's noisy activities. Similarly, in Christie v. Davey, damages were awarded for the discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's nuisance.