## Facts

- Mr. Robinson occupied the upper part of a building where he stored brown paper, a material susceptible to heat damage.
- Mr. Kilvert operated a paper box manufacturing business in the cellar and maintained a warm, dry environment using heating that produced hot, dry air.
- The heat generated by Kilvert’s business rose and affected Robinson’s brown paper, drying it out and diminishing its quality and value.
- Robinson claimed this constituted a nuisance causing actionable damage to his property.
- The claim was brought on the basis that the heat interfered with the use and enjoyment of Robinson’s premises, specifically affecting his unusually sensitive brown paper.

## Issues

1. Whether damage caused by heat to the claimant's particularly sensitive property amounted to actionable nuisance.
2. Whether liability in nuisance arises when the defendant’s conduct would not harm ordinary property but affects property with unusual sensitivity.
3. Whether the principle of nuisance protects only ordinary uses of property, or extends to unusually sensitive activities or goods.
4. Whether malice on the part of the defendant is necessary to incur liability when dealing with sensitive uses of property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Robinson’s claim, holding that Kilvert was not liable in nuisance.
- The court found that the damage resulted from the exceptional sensitivity of Robinson’s brown paper, not from any unreasonable activity by Kilvert.
- The heat from Kilvert’s business would not have caused harm to property of ordinary sensitivity.
- A defendant is not liable in nuisance where the claimant’s loss is due solely to an unusually sensitive use of the property.
- The court distinguished from situations involving actual physical damage to ordinary property and from cases involving malicious actions.

## Legal Principles

- Liability in private nuisance does not arise for activities that would not have interfered with an ordinary use or ordinary property.
- The standard for actionable nuisance is based on the effect of the defendant's conduct on property or activities of ordinary sensitivity.
- Damage resulting solely from the claimant’s unusual or delicate use of property is not actionable in nuisance.
- The rule from Robinson v Kilvert does not apply when the defendant’s conduct is malicious; malice can make even interference with a sensitive activity actionable.
- Where actual physical damage occurs (as in St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping), the locality is irrelevant and liability may arise regardless of property sensitivity.

## Conclusion

Robinson v Kilvert [1889] 41 Ch D 88 established that nuisance claims cannot succeed where the harm results exclusively from the claimant’s unusually sensitive property or use, absent malice or damage to ordinarily-used property, thereby setting a key standard in nuisance law for distinguishing legitimate claims from those based on exceptional sensitivity.
