Defences to Private Nuisance

Question 1

Ordinary use of land:
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills:

Answer 1

C testified that he could hear noises like conversation, singing, arguments, television, coughing, vacuums, music etc. This was not a nuisance as the noises were ordinary.

Question 2

Statutory Authority:

Answer 2

Nuisances can be caused by public authorities acting under statutory powers e.g road works.

This is a defence provided the nuisance does not exceed what was authorised

Question 3

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd: statutory authority

Answer 3

C bought action in nuisance for the smell, noise and vibration created by an oil refinery constructed by D on their land, authorised by parliament.

Held: D not liable as it had defence of statutory authority.

Question 4

Act of God and Nuisances arising naturally:

Answer 4

An event that happens independently of any human action e.g. a storm, this is a complete defence.

Question 5

Nichols v Marsland: Act of God

Answer 5

D diverted a natural stream onto his land to create ornamental lakes.

Heavy rain caused flooding to these and damage to adjoining land.

Held: D not liable because it was an act of God.

Question 6

Occupier becomes aware of nuisance…

Answer 6

Once occupier becomes aware of nuisance and fails to remedy it in a reasonable time, they could be liable for damage caused.

Question 7

Goldman v Hargrave: Aware of nuisance

Answer 7

Tree on D’s land struck by lightning and set on fire, D chopped the tree down and didn’t douse it with fire, letting itself burn and then it spread to C’s land.

C sued for negligence and nuisance.

Held: D was negligent for failing to remove the hazard and is liable for both.

Question 8

Prescription

Answer 8

Rarely succeeds in practice.

If D can show they have been committing the nuisance for 20 years and that the claimant has been aware of this and done nothing about it then D has a defence because D acquired the prescriptive right to commit the nuisance.

Question 9

Coventry v Lawrence: Prescription

Answer 9

C brought a nuisance action against D for noise of motor sports conducted on their land.

Planning permission was granted in 1975.

At first it was found for C.

Held: D appealed on grounds that the judge did not take into account planning permission, C came to the nuisance which was operating for years and D had a right by prescription. Appeal was allowed.

Question 10

20 Years

Answer 10

The 20 years will not start until C becomes aware of the nuisance.

Question 11

Sturges v Bridgman: 20 years

Answer 11

D’s sweet shop operated a noisy pestle and mortar for over 20 years without neighbours, until a physician built a consulting room and brought an action in nuisance to get an injunction to stop the noise.

D relied on the prescription act.

Held: Use of land prior to construction of consulting room was not preventable/actionable so it was not findable of a prescription right.