## Facts

- Shelfer owned property adjacent to the premises of the City of London Electric Lighting Co.
- The defendant operated machinery that caused vibrations and noise, interfering with Shelfer’s use and enjoyment of his property.
- Shelfer sought an injunction to restrain the company from continuing the nuisance.
- The defendant argued the injury was minimal and could be adequately compensated by damages rather than an injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the injury to the claimant’s legal rights warranted the grant of an injunction or whether damages would be sufficient.
2. Under what circumstances a court should award damages in lieu of an injunction in cases of nuisance or interference with property rights.
3. How to balance the interests of the claimant against potential hardship or oppressiveness to the defendant when considering equitable remedies.

## Decision

- The court established a four-part test for awarding damages instead of an injunction in cases of nuisance.
- An injunction may be refused and damages awarded if: (1) the injury to the claimant is small; (2) the injury can be estimated in monetary terms; (3) the injury can be adequately compensated by a small monetary payment; and (4) granting an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant.
- The court emphasized the discretionary nature of equitable remedies, requiring consideration of both parties’ interests and the potential for undue hardship to the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- The four-part Shelfer test determines eligibility for damages in lieu of injunction: small injury; monetary estimation; adequate compensation via small payment; and oppressiveness of injunction.
- Equitable remedies such as injunctions are discretionary and are not awarded as of right, unlike common law damages.
- The application of the Shelfer principles requires the court to balance protection of property rights with the avoidance of undue hardship to defendants.
- The Shelfer test has significantly influenced subsequent case law on nuisance and equitable remedies, with courts recognizing both its enduring relevance and the need for flexibility in application.

## Conclusion

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287 is a foundational case in English law establishing the criteria for awarding damages in lieu of an injunction in nuisance cases. The four-part Shelfer test remains central to the exercise of judicial discretion in equitable remedies, ensuring a fair balance between protection of property rights and avoidance of excessive hardship for defendants. Despite criticism regarding its rigidity, the test continues to shape the development and application of equitable principles in modern legal contexts.
