Private nuisance — common mistakes

Yes. Public benefit is not a defence to a claim of private nuisance. The court's primary focus is on the unreasonable interference with the claimant's land rights. However, public benefit may be a significant factor when the court decides on the remedy, potentially leading to an award of damages instead of an injunction that would stop the beneficial activity (see Miller v Jackson).

No. Malice is just one of several factors the court considers when determining unreasonableness. An activity can be a nuisance even if the defendant has good intentions. However, the presence of malice, where the defendant acts with the sole purpose of annoying the claimant, will almost certainly render the interference unreasonable, as seen in Christie v Davey.

Generally, private nuisance requires a continuous state of affairs. However, an isolated incident can constitute a nuisance if it highlights an underlying and dangerous state of affairs on the defendant's land. For example, in Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd, fire damage from a brief but intense firework display was held to be a nuisance because of the dangerous nature of the activity.