## 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.


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