Update 13th September 2024: Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more
DEFINING THE CAUSE OF ACTION
A private nuisance is an act or omission by D which unduly interferes with C's reasonable use and enjoyment of his land, or of some easement or other right which C uses or enjoys in connection with that land.
The abovementioned paraphrase of Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd is a convenient description of the tort of private nuisance. Others include:
the essence of private nuisance is … an interference with land or the enjoyment of land … [and] … an invasion of [C's] interest in the possession and enjoyment of land … The function of the tort … is to control the activities of the owner or occupier of property within the boundaries of his own land, which may harm the interests of the owner or occupier of other land (per Lord Lloyd, and Lord Hope, respectively, in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd).
The controlling principles [of private nuisance] which are (a) the reasonable use of property, and (b) reciprocal regard for the interests of neighbours, reinforce an altruistic process of give and take (Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd).
Private nuisance is an old tort – much older than negligence. Claims for nuisance ‘can be found in reports of cases going back to the reign of Henry IV’ (albeit that, as one judge drily pointed out, undoubtedly it was not responsible for the exhortation in Henry IV, ‘the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’).
Review the options below to login to check your access.
Log in with your Cambridge Higher Education account to check access.
There are no purchase options available for this title.
If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.