## Facts

- Mr. Tipping owned an estate near the defendant's copper smelting works.
- Fumes from the smelting operations allegedly caused damage to Mr. Tipping's trees, crops, and livestock, as well as discomfort and inconvenience to his household.
- The dispute centered on whether the smelting company's emission of fumes amounted to actionable nuisance, considering both physical damage and interference with land enjoyment.
- The smelting works were located in an industrial area, where some interference was considered expected due to the locality.

## Issues

1. Whether liability in nuisance required proof of substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of land.
2. Whether a distinction should be made between physical damage to property and mere amenity (comfort or enjoyment) damage.
3. Whether industrial activities conducted in an industrial area could avoid liability for physical damage by citing the nature of the locality.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held the defendant liable for the physical damage to Mr. Tipping's property caused by the fumes.
- The judgment drew a clear distinction: physical damage to property constitutes actionable nuisance regardless of the locality.
- Amenity damage (interference with enjoyment or comfort) requires a higher threshold to be actionable, with reasonableness assessed in context.
- The location in an industrial area did not provide a defense against liability for physical damage, though it may influence the assessment of amenity damage claims.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for nuisance is established when there is physical damage to property, irrespective of the character of the area where the nuisance occurs.
- Discomfort or inconvenience (amenity damage) only amounts to nuisance if it is substantial and unreasonable, judged by the circumstances.
- The reasonableness of industrial activities is considered in light of the locality, but does not excuse actual physical harm to property.
- Industries are required to take reasonable steps to prevent physical damage to neighboring properties, even if their activities are otherwise lawful and beneficial.

## Conclusion

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642 established that physical damage from industrial activities creates strict liability in nuisance, regardless of locality, while claims for amenity damage depend on substantial and unreasonable interference within the context of the area's character.
