Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468

Facts

  • The claimant owned and operated a silver fox farm, with foxes particularly sensitive to noise during the breeding season, making them prone to miscarriage or harming their young when disturbed.
  • The defendant, an adjoining landowner and animal rights activist, objected to the fox farming operation and instructed his son to fire guns as close as possible to the fox breeding pens.
  • The firing was intended specifically to disrupt the foxes' breeding, with the aim of causing economic harm to the farm and compelling its closure.
  • The claimant filed a private nuisance claim, alleging intentional and targeted disturbance caused by the defendant’s actions.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's deliberate firearm noise near the fox breeding pens constituted an actionable private nuisance.
  2. Whether malicious intent in the defendant’s actions affected the assessment of liability for nuisance.
  3. Whether the heightened sensitivity of the claimant's foxes altered the defendant's liability for nuisance.

Decision

  • The court found in favour of the claimant, holding that the defendant’s actions amounted to an actionable private nuisance.
  • Malicious intent was determined to be relevant in establishing nuisance, rendering otherwise lawful acts unlawful when intended to cause harm.
  • The High Court distinguished the case from Bradford Corporation v Pickles, finding that malice was immaterial in cases involving lawful actions but became material where the conduct already constituted a nuisance.
  • The claimant was granted an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continuing firearm activity near the fox farm.

Legal Principles

  • Malicious intent can transform otherwise lawful acts into actionable nuisance where the intent is to harm a neighbour.
  • The principle from Bradford Corporation v Pickles does not apply where the defendant's conduct constitutes a nuisance; in such cases, motive is relevant.
  • Where a nuisance exists, increased sensitivity of the claimant’s use of land does not necessarily preclude liability if the defendant’s conduct is malicious.
  • A landowner's enjoyment of their land is subject to the condition that its use does not amount to a nuisance to neighbours, especially when wrongful intent is present.

Conclusion

The decision in Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett confirms that malicious intent is a material factor in private nuisance claims and can render acts, which might otherwise be considered reasonable, actionable if they are intended to inflict harm on a neighbour. This case refines the boundaries of permissible land use and exemplifies the limitations imposed on landowners acting with a harmful motive.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal