Flash Cards UK Nuisance case laws
Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
Strict liability for non-natural use of land that causes harm.
A reservoir burst and flooded a mine. Defendant held strictly liable for the damage caused.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]
To claim nuisance, there must be substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of land.
Loss of television reception due to construction of a high-rise building. Claim dismissed, no valid nuisance.
Sturges v Bridgman [1879]
The character of the neighborhood does not automatically excuse nuisance.
A doctor’s practice was disturbed by noise from a confectioner’s factory. Defendant found liable for nuisance.
Coventry v Lawrence [2014]
Even with the passage of time, certain activities can still constitute a nuisance.
Motor racing at a stadium causing noise disturbance. Defendant found liable for nuisance.
Broom v Morgan [1953]
No nuisance if the activity is reasonable or occurs with proper consent.
Plaintiff sought damages for noisy activities by a neighbor. No nuisance found due to the nature of the activity.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
Nuisance can arise from contamination of water supply.
Leather company’s chemicals polluted the local water supply. Defendant found liable for the damage.
Nox v Pegram [1935]
Nuisance claims must involve interference with the enjoyment or use of land.
Smell from a pigsty affected a neighbor’s land use. Nuisance claim upheld.
Adams v Ursell [1913]
Nuisance may arise from activities that harm the public’s health or comfort.
Fish and chip shop caused a smell that disturbed neighbors. Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012]
Air pollution and odors can lead to nuisance claims.
Waste management company’s operations caused strong odors in the area. Court found the company liable for nuisance.
Miller v Jackson [1977]
Activities of public benefit may still be considered nuisance.
Cricket balls from a nearby cricket ground hit plaintiff’s house. Defendant held liable despite the public benefit of cricket.
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]
Nuisance claims are typically limited to physical damage or serious interference.
Heat from a factory damaged paper goods. Nuisance found, but claim based on property damage rather than discomfort.
Leakey v National Trust [1980]
Liability for nuisance due to dangerous natural occurrences, if caused by negligence.
Erosion from a hill owned by the National Trust caused damage to nearby property. National Trust found liable for the erosion damage.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather [1994]
Liability for contamination extends to damage that is a direct result of the nuisance.
Leather company polluted a local water supply with harmful chemicals. Defendant found liable for the environmental damage.
Walter v Selfe [1851]
Nuisance is a substantial interference with the enjoyment of land.
Neighbor complained about the smell and noise from a neighbor’s activity. Nuisance established and defendant found liable.
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills [2001]
Nuisance claim fails if the interference is reasonable or part of urban living.
Residents of a council flat sued over noise from neighboring flats. Claim dismissed, no nuisance found.
Dymond v Pearce [1972]
A nuisance claim can be based on unlawful interference with a right to light.
A building’s construction blocked light from the plaintiff’s property. Defendant found liable for causing nuisance.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]
Interference with television reception is not a valid nuisance.
Tower block construction caused loss of television signal. Claim dismissed, no nuisance.
Halsall v Brizell [1957]
Liability for nuisance can extend to interference with the use of land even if temporary.
The construction of a building interfered with a neighbor’s right to use a right of way. Nuisance found.
Searle v Gormal [1975]
Nuisance claims can arise from excessive noise.
Industrial machinery noise disturbed nearby residential properties. Defendant found liable for nuisance.
The Royal London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v UBA Ltd [2004]
Nuisance claims can arise from issues related to pollution.
Air pollution from a manufacturing facility caused issues to residents. Company found liable for causing environmental nuisance.
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985]
Occupiers are responsible for maintaining land in a way that does not interfere with others.
Trees on a property caused damage to neighboring land. Defendant held liable for nuisance.
Fearn v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2019]
Right to privacy and enjoyment of property can be a basis for nuisance claims.
Viewing gallery windows from Tate Modern allowed the public to look into private apartments. Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding a nuisance.
Pemberton v City of London Real Property Co. Ltd [1893]
An activity that causes damage to a neighboring property can amount to nuisance.
Vibration from construction caused damage to adjacent property. Defendant found liable for the nuisance.
Bentley v Hilton [2001]
Overhanging tree branches can result in nuisance claims.
Tree branches caused interference with neighboring property. Nuisance found.
Khorasandjian v Bush [1993]
Harassment and excessive phone calls can be considered as nuisance.
Repeated phone calls to a woman were deemed as nuisance. Defendant held liable for nuisance.
Blake v The National Trust [1998]
Nuisance can arise from actions that interfere with land enjoyment.
A camping site caused excessive noise and disturbance to local residents. Defendant found liable for nuisance.
Miller v Jackson [1977]
A beneficial public activity does not always absolve liability for nuisance.
Cricket balls were hit onto a neighbor’s property. The cricket club was held liable for nuisance.
Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2018]
Nuisance can arise from excessive noise or vibration.
Residents complained about noise and vibration from nearby railway tracks. The railway company found liable for the nuisance.
Castle v St Augustine’s Links [1922]
A nuisance can occur even when the defendant’s actions are performed with good intentions.
Golf balls hit a person from a golf course. Golf course was found liable for nuisance.
Bolton v Stone [1951]
Nuisance claim fails if the risk of injury is small and reasonable precautions are taken.
A cricket ball struck a passerby, but proper precautions were in place. No nuisance found.
