Public and Private Nuisance in Tort Law: Key Principles
Introduction to Nuisance in Tort Law
The tort of nuisance is often viewed as a fault-based tort. It requires damage to land, property, the value of land, or the enjoyment of land.
There are three main forms:
- Statutory Nuisance
- Public Nuisance
- Private Nuisance
Potential remedies include an award of damages, an injunction order, or abatement.
Public Nuisance Explained
Public nuisance affects a class of people, not just one individual. It is classified as a criminal wrong but can also be remedied under tort law if an individual suffers special damage beyond that suffered by the general public.
Defining Public Nuisance: AG v PYA Quarries
Facts: The defendant operated a quarry using a blasting system that caused noise, vibrations, and threw out dust, stones, and splinters, affecting many people living nearby. The Court of Appeal held that this could amount to a public nuisance due to its widespread effect.
Requirement of Special Damage
To bring a civil action for public nuisance, a claimant must prove they suffered special damage over and above the inconvenience suffered by the public.
Benjamin v Starr Case Example
Facts: The claimant ran a coffee house in Covent Garden, London. The defendant regularly parked horses and carts outside, obstructing the highway and blocking light from the shops. While the nuisance affected all shopkeepers, the claimant successfully proved special damage because the obstruction specifically deterred customers from his coffee house, impacting his business more significantly.
Tate & Lyle Food Case Example
Facts: The defendant council built ferry terminals in the river, causing excessive silting on the riverbed. This caused general inconvenience, but the claimants (Tate & Lyle) were particularly affected as access to their jetty was blocked. The House of Lords held that this obstruction, significantly impacting their specific operations, amounted to special damage.
Private Nuisance Explained
Private nuisance is defined as an unreasonable interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of their land. Examples include excessive smells, noise, pollution, vibrations, and other similar disruptions.
It typically involves disputes between neighbouring properties where one party stores something on their land or uses it in a manner that causes disturbance or damage to their neighbour’s property.
Defining Private Nuisance: Hunter v Canary Wharf
Facts: This case affirmed that private nuisance occurs where special damage (interference with use/enjoyment) is caused to individuals with a legal interest in land through an unreasonable interference with their quiet and peaceful enjoyment of that land.
Nature of Liability
Strict Liability Approach: Walter v Selfe
Whether an activity amounts to private nuisance is a question of fact. Judges consider various factors. According to Walter v Selfe, the focus is on the unreasonableness of the interference with the claimant’s enjoyment of land, not necessarily on the defendant’s fault in causing it.
Foreseeability of Harm (Lunny & Oliphant)
However, contemporary views (e.g., Lunny & Oliphant) suggest a defendant will generally only be liable to pay damages for harm that was reasonably foreseeable.
Protected Interests
Legal scholar Cane, in ‘What a Nuisance’, questioned whether the scope of private nuisance should extend to include claims purely for loss of enjoyment of life, separate from interference with land use.
Parties in a Private Nuisance Action
Potential Claimants: Malone v Laskey
Traditionally, only those with a proprietary or possessory interest in the affected land could sue.
Facts: In Malone v Laskey, vibrations from an engine on adjoining property caused a bracket supporting a cistern to loosen, and the cistern fell on the claimant, injuring her. Her claim failed because she did not have a proprietary interest in the house; she was merely present as a licensee (her husband was the tenant’s employee). Note: The rule requiring proprietary interest was later challenged, particularly in light of human rights law, though Hunter v Canary Wharf largely reaffirmed it.
Potential Defendants
Liability can fall upon:
- Creator of the Nuisance: The person who directly causes the interference (Thomas v NUM).
- Occupier of the Land: An occupier can be liable for nuisances created by others (e.g., trespassers, predecessors) if they adopt or continue the nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan).
- Owner/Landlord: A landlord may be liable if they knowingly authorised the nuisance by the tenant or if the nuisance existed at the time of letting (Tetley v Chitty).
Factors Determining Unreasonableness
Courts consider several factors when deciding if an interference is unreasonable:
Locality Principle: St. Helen’s Smelting v Tipping
The nature of the area is relevant. What constitutes a nuisance in a quiet residential area might not be considered one in an industrial zone. However, this principle primarily applies to interferences causing loss of amenity (e.g., noise, smell).
Rule: If the defendant’s interference causes actual physical damage to the property, it will likely be deemed unreasonable, regardless of the locality’s character (as established in St. Helen’s Smelting v Tipping).
Example: People living in busy city centre flats disturbed by expected levels of traffic noise may have a weaker claim in private nuisance than those disturbed by similar noise introduced into a quiet rural village.