Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 2 All ER 145

Facts

• Mr. Halsey owned a house near Esso Petroleum’s oil depot.
• The depot operated steam boilers that emitted acid smuts, damaging Mr. Halsey’s car and washing.
• Night shifts at the depot produced significant noise from boilers and heavy vehicles.
• The noise, smells, and acid smuts materially interfered with Mr. Halsey’s ordinary comfort and enjoyment of his property.
• Veale J determined the interference from noise and smell, particularly at night, surpassed what could be considered trivial and affected a person of normal sensibilities.
• Acid smuts emitted from the depot’s boilers caused physical damage to Mr. Halsey’s belongings.
• Esso argued the nuisances and damage were not actionable, partly due to the location or manner of operation.

Issues

1. Whether the noise, smells, and damage from acid smuts amounted to actionable private nuisance against Esso Petroleum.
2. Whether Esso’s mode of operation, including noise from oil tankers and nighttime activities, could render them liable for nuisance when the interference originated partly outside their land.
3. Whether Esso could be held strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of acid smuts causing physical damage to the claimant’s property.
4. What remedies were appropriate for the various interferences suffered by Mr. Halsey.

Decision

• The court found that Esso Petroleum's activities constituted an unreasonable user of land, resulting in actionable nuisance due to noise and smells, especially during night hours.
• Interference was attributed to Esso’s mode of operation, including the nighttime movement of oil tankers, expanding potential liability beyond direct emissions from the land.
• The acid smuts were considered a “dangerous thing,” and their escape from Esso’s premises made Esso strictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
• Veale J held that physical damage to property from acid smuts and non-trivial interference with comfort and convenience entitled Mr. Halsey to relief.
• The court granted injunctions restricting the nighttime operation of the depot and tanker movements, and against the emission of smells from the boilers, as well as damages for property damage.

Legal Principles

• Actionable nuisance arises from an unreasonable user of land that materially interferes with an ordinary person’s enjoyment or comfort at home.
• Temporal context is relevant: interference considered reasonable by day can become unreasonable at night.
• Liability in nuisance is not limited to direct emissions from the defendant’s land but extends to harm attributable to the defendant’s manner of operating their land.
• Under Rylands v Fletcher, strict liability attaches where a dangerous thing escapes from the defendant’s land and causes damage, irrespective of negligence or intent.
• Remedies may include both injunctions to prevent ongoing nuisance and damages for harm already suffered.

Conclusion

Halsey v Esso Petroleum demonstrates the expanded scope of nuisance and strict liability, holding that liability can arise from both unreasonable use and the escape of hazardous substances, and confirming courts’ willingness to grant injunctions and damages to balance property rights against business operations.