Understanding the Law on Nuisance

Introduction

Nuisance deals with interferences with the use or enjoyment of land. It sits within tort law and aims to keep a fair balance between neighbours and land users. Liability usually turns on whether the interference is substantial and unreasonable, or whether there is physical damage to property.

There are two main types: private nuisance (affecting specific landowners) and public nuisance (affecting a class of the public). A closely related but distinct area is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which imposes strict liability for escapes of dangerous things from land.

This guide sets out the tests, defences, and remedies, with key case law explained in plain terms.

What You'll Learn

• What amounts to private nuisance and public nuisance
• How courts assess “unreasonableness” (locality, duration, sensitivity, and more)
• Who can sue and who can be sued in private nuisance
• How the rule in Rylands v Fletcher operates today
• Common defences, including statutory authority and prescription
• Remedies such as injunctions, damages, and abatement
• Leading authorities, including Sturges v Bridgman, St Helens Smelting, Hunter v Canary Wharf, Cambridge Water, and Coventry v Lawrence

Core Concepts

Private Nuisance: elements and tests

Private nuisance protects an occupier’s right to use and enjoy their land without unreasonable interference by another.

• What the claimant must show

  • An interference with land (for example, noise, smells, smoke, dust, vibrations, encroaching roots/branches), or physical damage to property.
  • The interference is substantial and unreasonable, judged objectively.
  • The claimant generally needs a proprietary interest in the land: see Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655. Mere licensees and family members without such an interest usually cannot sue.

• Reasonableness factors

  • Locality: what is acceptable in an industrial area may not be acceptable in a quiet residential street (Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852). However, where there is material damage to property, the character of the area carries little weight (St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642).
  • Duration and timing: persistent or long-running interferences (especially at antisocial hours) are more likely to be unreasonable.
  • Intensity and frequency: louder, more frequent, or more invasive interferences are more likely to cross the line.
  • Sensitivity: the law protects the ordinary user of land, not abnormal sensitivity (Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88).
  • Purpose and conduct: spiteful or careless conduct can weigh against the defendant.

• Key limits

  • Interference with TV reception is generally not actionable as private nuisance (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
  • Claims for personal injury are not the focus of private nuisance, which is a tort concerned with property rights; personal injury claims are typically brought in negligence.

• Who can be sued

  • The creator of the nuisance.
  • Occupiers who adopt or continue a nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880).
  • Those who fail to take reasonable steps to deal with hazards on their land, including naturally occurring ones, once they know or ought to know of the risk (Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485).
  • Landlords who authorise or participate in the nuisance.

Public Nuisance: scope and standing

Public nuisance deals with conduct that materially affects the comfort, convenience, health, or safety of a class of the public. Typical examples include obstructing highways, widespread noise disturbance, or polluting public water supplies.

• Nature of the wrong

  • It is both a crime and a tort. Prosecutions are brought in the public interest.
  • A private action requires the claimant to show “special damage” over and above that suffered by the general public.

• Mental element

  • The defendant must know or ought to know of the consequences of their conduct (R v Rimmington; R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63; [2006] 2 All ER 257).
  • Liability has been found for large-scale events causing disturbance, obstruction, and risks to the public (R v Ruffell [1991] 13 Cr App R).

Rylands v Fletcher: strict liability for escapes

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability where a dangerous thing escapes from land and causes damage.

• Elements

  • Accumulation: the defendant brings onto their land something likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
  • Non-natural use: the use must be extraordinary or unusual (Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330; Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1).
  • Escape: the substance escapes from the defendant’s land to the claimant’s.
  • Foreseeability: the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264).

• Scope today

  • The rule is closely aligned with nuisance but remains distinct.
  • Ordinary domestic uses (e.g., standard water mains) are unlikely to qualify as a non-natural use (Transco).
  • Claimants generally need a proprietary interest in land.

Liability and standing in private nuisance

• Who can sue

  • Owners and tenants with proprietary interests (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
  • Licence holders typically cannot.

• Who can be liable

  • Creators and occupiers who adopt or continue a nuisance (Sedleigh-Denfield).
  • Landlords who authorise a nuisance.
  • Those who fail to address known natural hazards within reasonable means (Leakey).

Defences

• Statutory authority

  • If Parliament has specifically authorised an activity, this can be a complete defence, provided the nuisance is the inevitable result of that authority.

• Prescription

  • A right to continue a nuisance may be acquired after 20 years’ continuous and actionable interference, counted from when it first became an actionable nuisance (Sturges v Bridgman).
  • The nature and intensity must not have materially changed.

• Consent (volenti)

  • Express or implied agreement to the interference can defeat a claim.

• “Coming to the nuisance”

  • Not a defence. The fact the claimant moved to the area after the activity began does not bar a claim (Sturges v Bridgman; Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966).

• Planning permission

  • Not a defence to nuisance, but may influence the reasonableness assessment and the choice of remedy (Coventry v Lawrence (No 1) [2014] UKSC 13).

• Other points

  • Contributory negligence may reduce damages.
  • For Rylands claims, defences can include act of a third party or extraordinary natural events, where proved.

Remedies

• Injunction

  • Prohibits or limits the activity. Terms can be tailored (e.g., hours, decibel levels, frequency).

• Damages

  • Compensation for diminution in value, cost of repair, loss of amenity, and consequential loss linked to the nuisance.

• Damages in lieu of injunction

  • Courts may award damages instead of an injunction where appropriate. The traditional Shelfer guidelines ((1895) 1 Ch 287) are applied with flexibility following Coventry v Lawrence (No 1).

• Abatement (self-help)

  • The claimant may take reasonable steps to stop the nuisance (for example, trimming overhanging branches) without causing a breach of the peace and usually after giving notice.

Key Examples or Case Studies

• Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852

  • Doctor’s consulting room adjacent to a confectioner’s machinery.
  • Held: locality matters; what is acceptable in one area may not be in another. “Coming to the nuisance” failed as a defence.

• St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642

  • Industrial emissions damaged trees and shrubs.
  • Held: where there is material damage to property, the character of the neighbourhood carries little weight.

• Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88

  • Heat affected delicate paper, not ordinary paper.
  • Held: abnormal sensitivity does not found a claim; standard of the ordinary user applies.

• Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966

  • Cricket balls frequently entered neighbouring gardens.
  • Held: liability found; public benefit of cricket affected the remedy, not liability. No defence of “coming to the nuisance.”

• Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655

  • Complaints of dust, noise, and loss of TV signal from a new tower.
  • Held: only those with a proprietary interest may sue; interference with TV reception is not actionable in private nuisance.

• Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880

  • A culvert installed by a third party caused flooding; occupier knew of it.
  • Held: occupier who adopts or continues a nuisance is liable.

• Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485

  • Natural mound collapsed onto neighbouring land.
  • Held: duty to take reasonable steps to prevent known natural hazards causing harm.

• R v Ruffell [1991] 13 Cr App R

  • Large “acid house” party causing traffic obstruction and noise.
  • Held: public nuisance due to widespread disturbance to the community.

• R v Rimmington; R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63; [2006] 2 All ER 257

  • Clarified that the conduct must affect a class of the public; defendant must know or ought to know the likely consequences.

• Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264

  • Solvent seepage affecting a borehole.
  • Held: foreseeability of the type of damage required for Rylands; non-natural use refined.

• Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1

  • Water escape from ordinary water pipe.
  • Held: domestic water supply is not a non-natural use; rule reserved for extraordinary hazards.

• Coventry v Lawrence (No 1) [2014] UKSC 13

  • Noise from a motor sport track with planning permission.
  • Held: permission is not a defence but may inform reasonableness and remedies; damages in lieu of an injunction may be appropriate.

Practical Applications

• Step-by-step approach to a private nuisance claim

  1. Identify the interference: is it physical damage or loss of amenity (noise, smells, dust, vibrations)?
  2. Confirm standing: does the claimant have a proprietary interest (owner/tenant)?
  3. Assess reasonableness: consider locality, duration, intensity, timing, sensitivity of the use, and conduct of the defendant.
  4. Check causation and foreseeability: especially for Rylands and where damage is alleged.
  5. Consider defences: statutory authority, prescription, consent, and the relevance of planning permission.
  6. Choose remedies: injunction, tailored restrictions, damages, or abatement.

• Common fact patterns

  • Neighbour disputes over noise from music, air conditioning units, or late-night deliveries.
  • Odours and fumes from commercial kitchens or waste storage.
  • Construction dust, vibrations, and site traffic affecting nearby homes.
  • Overhanging branches and invasive roots causing structural damage.

• Practical tips for parties

  • Keep records: dates, times, and effects; photographs; noise readings where possible.
  • Communicate early: propose practical limits (hours of operation, soundproofing, dust suppression).
  • Review planning conditions: while not a defence, compliance can influence what the court considers reasonable.
  • Consider proportionality: even if liability is established, a court may prefer damages to an outright ban where an activity has wider community value (Coventry v Lawrence).

• For Rylands scenarios

  • Audit stored substances and systems: fuel tanks, bulk chemicals, large water features.
  • Maintenance and monitoring: inspection regimes reduce risk and help rebut allegations of unreasonable conduct.
  • Emergency plans: containment and response reduce the scale of any escape and subsequent liability.

Summary Checklist

• Private nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference or physical damage.
• Locality matters for amenity claims but not where there is material property damage.
• Abnormal sensitivity of the claimant’s use will not usually succeed.
• Only those with a proprietary interest can sue in private nuisance (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
• Public nuisance affects a class of the public; private actions require special damage and knowledge of likely consequences.
• Rylands v Fletcher needs accumulation, non-natural use, an escape, and foreseeable damage (Cambridge Water; Transco).
• Defences include statutory authority, prescription, and consent; “coming to the nuisance” is not a defence.
• Remedies include injunctions, damages (including in lieu of an injunction), and careful abatement.

Quick Reference