Private nuisance — practice questions

Elements:

1. Interference: Loud noise on race days — indirect interference with enjoyment of land.
2. Claimant standing: Homeowners with exclusive possession — can sue (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
3. Unreasonable? Apply reasonableness factors:
   • Locality: Residential area — noise less tolerable than industrial zone (Sturges v Bridgman).
   • Duration/frequency: Regular race days — persistent not one-off.
   • Intensity: 100 dB is very loud, likely exceeding reasonable levels.
   • Utility: Commercial entertainment — weighed against residents' peace.

Defences to reject:

• Coming to nuisance: Track opened after residents — not a defence (Coventry v Lawrence).
• Planning permission: May inform reasonableness but does not authorise nuisance (Coventry).

Remedies: Injunction to limit hours/noise levels and/or damages for loss of amenity.

Conclusion: The persistent, high-intensity noise in a residential locality is a clear amenity nuisance. The residents have a strong claim. Contrast with Miller v Jackson where public interest led to damages over an injunction; here, the court may be more willing to grant an injunction to control the noise.

1. Establishing the Tort:

• Claimant (Locus Standi): Priya, as the owner of Orchid Oasis, has a proprietary interest in the land and therefore has the right to sue.
• Defendant: ChemCo is the creator of the nuisance (the dust emissions).
• Interference: The acidic dust is an indirect interference with Priya's land.
• Damage: The interference has caused physical damage to property (destroyed orchids, damage to the glasshouse structure) and loss of amenity (unsightly appearance).

2. Unreasonableness:

• The key principle here is from St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping. Since there is tangible physical damage to the property (the orchids and glasshouse), the character of the locality is irrelevant. The emission of a substance that causes physical harm is almost certainly an unreasonable interference.

3. Defences:

• ChemCo has no obvious defences. It cannot argue 'coming to the nuisance'. Even if it has planning permission or an environmental permit to operate, this does not provide a defence to a civil claim in nuisance (Coventry v Lawrence).

4. Remedies and Calculation of Damages:

• Priya can seek an injunction to prevent ChemCo from continuing to emit the harmful dust.
• She can also claim damages for her financial losses.
• Calculation:
  • Loss of stock (chattels): The value of the destroyed orchids is a direct financial loss caused by the nuisance. Loss = £25,000.
  • Damage to land value: The diminution in the property's value represents the capital loss resulting from the ongoing nuisance. Loss = £50,000.
  • Total Damages Calculation:

    £25,000 (Lost Stock) + £50,000 (Diminution in Value) = £75,000
    

Conclusion: Priya has a very strong claim in private nuisance. She is likely to be awarded an injunction and damages totalling £75,000.