## Facts

- Residents near the Gulf Oil refinery at Milford Haven, Wales, brought a nuisance claim against Gulf Oil Refining Ltd.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the refinery's operations caused noise, vibration, and noxious fumes, interfering with their enjoyment of property.
- Gulf Oil Refining Ltd constructed and operated the refinery under powers granted by the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965.
- The Act authorized the construction and operation of the refinery, acquisition of land, and the carrying out of necessary works.
- The plaintiffs argued that their private rights were unjustifiably interfered with, while the defendant relied on statutory authority as a defense.
- The matter was brought before the House of Lords to determine if statutory authority could defend against the nuisance claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory authority granted by the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965 provided a defence against the nuisance claim.
2. Whether the nuisances complained of (noise, vibration, fumes) were the inevitable result of the refinery's statutorily authorised operations.
3. Whether the Act expressly or implicitly authorized the alleged nuisance.
4. Whether the balance between public interest and private property rights permitted interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of land.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that statutory authority can serve as a defence to nuisance if the nuisance is the inevitable consequence of an activity authorised by statute.
- The court found that the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965 authorised the continued operation of the refinery.
- While the Act did not explicitly authorise the specific nuisances complained of, the court determined that noise, vibration, and fumes were unavoidable for the lawful operation of the refinery.
- The defence of statutory authority applied, so long as the nuisance was not caused by negligence and was truly inevitable.
- The plaintiffs’ nuisance claim failed due to the statutory authority defence.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory authority is a valid defence in nuisance where the offending activity is authorised by statute and the nuisance is the inevitable result.
- The statute need not expressly authorise the nuisance; it may be implied if the nuisance is unavoidable in carrying out the statutorily authorised activity.
- The defence does not apply if the nuisance could have been prevented by reasonable care or alternative methods.
- The requirement of inevitability limits the scope of the statutory authority defence to exclude unnecessary or negligent interference with private rights.
- Courts must interpret statutes to determine whether they expressly or implicitly authorise activities resulting in nuisance.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords established that statutory authority can override private nuisance claims if the nuisance is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of a statutorily authorised activity, clarifying a framework for balancing public interest with private property rights in nuisance law.


Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001 (HL)