Thesiger L.J: ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’.

Not sure if the facts still speak for themselves as it was a while ago but the sentence above still applies (not the facts so much). Different areas have different characters, you might expect a lot of noise in one area, but you don’t have to expect the same noise lever somewhere else. You need to look at the character of the area and how it might change. If you’re living in an industrial area it might be much more noisy than in a compound (locality principle).

There was smelting around the claimants house, which affected it, damaging the trees and fruit, rendering the cattle unhealthy. Where there is a damage to the property the locality principle doesn’t matter because it is clear that shouldn’t be happening. Goes beyond simple discomfort and actually created property damage.

The environmental permit changed the character of the neighbourhood. 

Biffa Waste deals with waste management, and a number of people brought an action against them as they had a permit for statutory activity to dispose of waste in the particular area and that caused quite nasty odours there. The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether this was a reasonable use of the land. Once you obtained a planning permission does that change the character of the area because permission was obtained? Biffa argued that the character has changed because they got permission to use the land in that way. They said they had statutory authority to commit these nuisances, and that the permit was evidence that they were a reasonable user. The COA said that the permit is not enough it defeat the claim of nuisance, nor did the permit change the character of the area. 

Here, the defendant operated a business on a lower floor of a building, which required hot and dry air, but because of the temperature the floors of the claimants above damaged the papers he was storing. The heat would not affect ordinary paper or cause a disturbance to the claimants workers. The court said that the claim had to fail because the claimants was involved in a sensitive use of the property and it would be unfair to do anything about it because it would restrict the use of land for the defendant.

The claimant in this case had a vessel that suffered significant damage due to the debris from the firework display. All the fireworks that fell down fell on the vessel and caused great damage, despite only lasting 20 minutes. It was decided that it was inevitable that what goes up must go down and cause some kind of damage. An injunction wasn’t helpful as the event already happened so damages was the only way to go.

Inequitable to grant an injunction preventing the cricket club from continuing to operate because of the substantial public benefit that the club provided - damages awarded instead.

A High Court decision, where there was an RMF base close to the home, and the flying something that caused defaming noise. The court said that yes there was a nuisance and that the noise would mean that the property was worth less. The noise would also be against  Art. 8 (the right to private and family life). The HC said that why should the claimants suffer through this, and why should they suffer from the noise and the consequences of it. They were compensated 950,000 pounds, until the national security base was moved.

Here the claimant was a music teacher who taught piano lessons at home. The defendant is a neighbour who is really irritated by the noise, who decided to show that he is annoyed by beating on the walls, whistling and shrieking. He could have brought a claim against the piano player, but because of his behaviour she brought a question against him for it. Because the defendant did what he did it was not a legitimate way to use his land.

Here the defendant didn’t like the way the claimant used his land (to breed silver foxes). He found the noises really annoying, so he decided to discharge his shotgun on his premises in order to interrupt the process. This caused the foxes to stop breeding and killing their young. Because the defendant was malicious in his action it didn’t matter that the use of the land was sensitive.

·      Here the local residents, which included home owners and their families, complained about the Canary Wharf tower. When it was erected it interfered with TV reception for those that lived nearby. Did an actionable nuisance exist? And if it did who could sue? The HOL said that the interference with the TV reception did not account to actionable nuisance as people can build what they would like on their land subject to planning control. Complaints should only be made during the planning stage, not when the building is already erected. It was also said that only claimants with rights in the land (very restrictive approach) could bring an action.

In this case the children brought an action for private nuisance. The defendant said that perhaps the claim should be strike down as they have no proprietary interest . The judge said that the claim should not be stricken down because rights under Article 8 ECHR have to be protected, and as long as there is an interest in land that is sufficient to bring a claim. 

There was an action brought for nuisance against the occupier of the first floor of the building in respect of dust and noise caused by the independent contractors working there. Impact on the claimant. Held that the employer in those circumstances would be liable for the damage even tough they were using independent contractors. 

Here, you have a local authority who trespass onto the defendants land and place a drainage pipe in a ditch, but it hadn’t been installed properly so when there was a heavy rainstorm it clogged up and flooded the claimants land. The HOL held that the defendant was liable because he has adopted the nuisance, using the drain to his advantage using it in the meantime.  

 A 100 ft high tree that was on the defendants land that was struck by lighting and caught on fire. The defendant left it to burn itself out, but he could pour water on it to ensure the fire would not spread. The wind blew and carried the fire, causing damage to the claimants house. It was said that this was a foreseeable risk and he should have done more.

An exceptionally dry summer and a very wet autumn changed the consistency of the land which caused a land slide which was above the claimants property which caused damage to them. The defendants who were responsible for the land were aware of the risk, and the claimants warned them about it before too. It was held that the defendants were liable. 

Claimant is a shopkeeper in a council estate, who has been subjected to racial harassment by local tenants. Some of these were prosecuted (around 106 people). An action was brought against the local authority who allowed those other people to live in that estate. It was held that the council was not liable, largely because the tenancy agreement included a clause instructing the tenant to discriminate and harass the tenants. 

Supreme Court decision that reaffirms coming to a nuisance is not a good defence- to say that you knew about the nuisance and moved to the place anyways. This must fail. Coming to a nuisance is no defence because its continues with property based tort. You have a right to allege nuisance and it must run with a land- would seem odd to say that the defendant is no longer subject to nuisance because there is a new owner of the land.

There is a private act of parliament to authorize the expansion of the Gulf Oils premises. Local residents started to complain about the noise and vibrations from it. They said that the burden should be on the defendant to show that the nuisance has been authorised. The case went up to the HOL who said that the claim of nuisance would exceed the statutory claim.

per Romer LJ: ‘...an act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as ‘the neighbourhood’;

Goldstein sent an envelope containing salt to a friend using the post. He was trying to prank his friend and show that this was a harmful substance. This leaked at the post office, starting a bomb threat. If there is no public element there is no public nuisance 

per Blackburn J:‘...the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes [and is non-natural use]'

The defendants employed an independent contactor to create a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines sunk when they were digging, but they failed to seal them off properly. They made the reservoir and filled it with water. But because the mines were not sealed off, the water went through the mine shafts and flooded the nearby mines. The claim was successful. 

The leather factory used chemicals to colour the leather and these were escaping into the water- satisfied the meaning of dangerous.