Seminar 9

Torts Related to Land

•  Private Nuisance

• Private nuisance – ‘a state of affairs or an activity

that causes unlawful and unreasonable
interference with another person’s land or interest
in land; or with the use or enjoyment of the land’.
E.g. noise, smell, fumes and encroachment of land
(tree branches)
• Unreasonableness- Court considers:

• Nature and duration of the interference – e.g. if interference

causes physical damage compared to mere inconvenience, Crown
River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996].
• The extent of the interference – does it affect a major or minor
part of the claimant’s premises (e.g. fumes, smell)
• The claimant’s sensitivity - normal/usual person
• Utility of defendant’s activity
• Defendant’s motive e.g. malice
• Location of claimant’s premises. Relevant only in cases of
interference with the use or enjoyment of land (amenity), not
interference with the land or property itself.
• Those living in an ‘inner city urban environment’ should
expect to co-exist in closer proximity with others, Fearn v
Tate Gallery Board of Trustees [2019].

• A formerly ‘quiet’ area was granted planning permission for

a port. Increased traffic, residents complained of nuisance,
claim failed. Held- the character of the locality had been
changed by the granting of the planning permission,
Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock [1993].

• Planning permission is not a blanket defences, especially

where frequent and intense interference (D operating a pig
farm) Wheeler v JJ Saunders [1996]
• Defences

• Prescription -defendant has acquired a right to cause the

nuisance as they have done so for over 20 years without
interruption.
• Time runs from when the claimant becomes aware of the
alleged nuisance, Sturges v Bridgman (1879) cannot argue
claimant came to the nuisance.

• Statutory Authority -defendant’s activity is authorised by

statute. Exception- the activity is undertaken in an
unreasonable manner
• Tutorial Question
• Ali moved to the historic village of Little Trumperton last year. Ali bought a house on
one of the new estates given planning permission by Little Trumperton Council, who
wish to make the area more residential.

• Since moving in, Ali has been upset by the actions of two of his neighbours. Ali's
garden backs onto to farmland owned by Barbara. For the past thirty years Barbara
has kept chickens and pigs on her farm. Ali finds that the chickens are very noisy from
early in the morning and that the pigs smell strongly and make it difficult for him to
enjoy sitting in his garden.

• Has Barbara committed a private nuisance?

• What is in favour of Ali? Any defences for Barbara?
• What can we note here? ‘historic village’, moved there just last year, planning
permission, aim ‘residential’
• 30 years, farm has utility, early morning, can he not sit in the garden? But 20 years
prescription only from when claimant becomes aware of act
Public nuisance
• Public Nuisance

• Public Nuisance protects the general convenience, comfort, safety of the

public.

• Public Nuisance is a tort against the community at large.

• The activities of the defendant in his premises affect many people in his
neighbourhood. In A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] the public nuisance arose
from the blasting of a quarry which affected many people in the
neighbourhood of the quarry.

• The same event/act may be actionable both as private nuisance (if it affects
a person’s land or the use/enjoyment of the land) and as a public nuisance
(if it affects the comfort and convenience of a section of the public
generally).
• Tutorial
• Ali has also become increasingly annoyed with Christine, who is renting
the house next door to his. Christine often has loud parties that go on
most of the night.
• This is a particular issue for Ali because he needs to get up very early for
his work as a postal worker. Ali’s daughter Xanthe is also angry at the noise
as she is often studying in the evening, for her upcoming GCSE exams
• Ali complained to Christine who refused to stop having parties. Ali then
complained to her landlord Darius, but since then Christine has started
playing loud music even more frequently in response. Ali has spoken to a
number of people who live close by, most of whom are also annoyed by
Christine’s loud parties.
• Has Christine committed a private nuisance or a public nuisance?
• Defences?
• Malice , utility, complained so defendant aware of nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
• The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

• The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher is aimed at protecting people

and premises from the harmful escape of things from
others’ premises.

• Rylands v Fletcher[1866] : The person who for his own

purposes, and in the non-natural use of his land, brings on
his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes…is answerable for all damage which is
the foreseeable consequence of its escape – Blackburn J.
• Conditions for Liability
• (a) somebody must bring and accumulate something on his land
• (b) the use of the land must be non-natural - “some special use
bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely
be ordinary use of the land… Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263).

• (c) It must be foreseeable that damage could be caused if the

thing escapes from the defendant’s premises (the likelihood of
escape does not need to be foreseeable).

• (d) There must be an escape- if the damage from the escape

occurs inside the defendant’s premises, there will be no liability.
• Tutorial
• Last week, it was discovered that a large barrel of paint that
Christine was storing in her back garden had leaked into the
farmland owned by Barbara.
• Christine had been storing the paint with the intention of
repainting some metal garden furniture and the paint was
extremely toxic. The paint had leaked into the soil and damaged
the crops which Barbara was growing. Barbara was using some
of the crops to feed her pigs, and the pigs have been diagnosed
with a rare illness due to eating the poisoned crops.
• Is Christine liable for the damage under the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher?
EoMP
• Sarah Smith is a well-known athlete specialising in archery who has
won numerous Olympic gold medals for Great Britain. Two months
ago, the Daily Delivery, a national newspaper, had the front page
headline "Shamed Sarah is Drugs Cheat!". This appeared alongside a
large picture of Sarah, with the word "Cheat" superimposed.
• Inside that day's newspaper, it was reported that Sarah had failed a
drugs test. This was technically true, although the substance detected
potentially enhanced the stamina of long-distance runners, so would
not have given Sarah any performance advantage. Further more,
Sarah had been given permission by the relevant athletics federation
to take the substance as it had been prescribed to treat a serious
medical condition.
• Terence, a Member of Parliament, saw the headline. Outraged, he
tabled a question during Parliamentary proceedings that day, asking
the Minister for Sport if "the lying drugs cheat Sarah would be stripped
of her gold medals?". This question was reported in the Parliamentary
record Hansard.
• The following day, a cartoon appeared in the Daily Delivery which was intended to show
Sarah injecting herself with banned substances. However, the cartoonist confused Sarah
with Sally Smith, an Olympic marathon runner.
• Yasmin, a former athlete, saw the cartoon and assumed Sally had been found to have
taken a banned substance. She immediately posted on social media "Disgusted that Sally
is a cheat. Not surprised though, I never liked her." 27 people viewed Yasmin's post.
• Sally recently moved to a large new house in a sought-after residential neighbourhood. She
has become increasingly annoyed with her neighbour Zoe, who keeps Sally and her
daughter Rebecca awake until late at night with loud noises from her garden shed. As Sally
needs to train early in the morning this is particularly annoying as it means she struggles to
get enough sleep.
• When Sally complained to Zoe, Zoe told her “I’ve been making furniture for 20 years and
you just moved in. You should mind your own business!”
• Sarah and Sally seek your advice on:
a.any potential claims in the tort of defamation.
•  Sally additionally seeks your advice on:
•       b.   any potential claim against Zoe in nuisance.
• Word count 3,500 words.
• Deadline 23:55 hrs Monday 14th March 2022