untitled

Leeman vMontagu (1936)

The defendant bought a house in a residential area which bordered on open countryside.

He kept a flock of 750 cockerels in an orchard about 100 yards from the house. These

cockerels crowed from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m., making it impossible for the claimant to sleep. The

Chapter 9

Nuisance, trespass, defamation and

vicarious liability

In the previous chapter the tort of negligence and the torts closely related to it were con-

sidered. In this chapter the torts of nuisance, trespass and defamation are considered. These

torts are not closely related to the tort of negligence. At the end of the chapter we examine

the circumstances in which an employer can be held liable for torts committed by an

employee during the course of his or her employment.

Private nuisance

Private nuisance can be defined as an unreasonable interference with a claimant’s land or

with a claimant’s use or enjoyment of land. The interference must be substantial and unrea-

sonable. Only an owner of land, or a person with a right to be in possession of land, can sue.

Many businesses are at risk of committing private nuisance. Whereas a direct invasion of

another person’s land, such as dumping rubbish on it, would amount to the tort of trespass

to land, an indirect interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of land can amount

to nuisance. So a business might commit private nuisance by making unreasonable noise or

by emitting noxious fumes.

Some businesses are inherently noisy or must emit noxious fumes. This does not

mean that such businesses will necessarily commit the tort of nuisance. The key to private

nuisance is that the interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land must be

unreasonable. InCambridge Water Co Ltd vEastern Counties Leather plc (1994)(House

of Lords) Lord Goff said: ‘if [the defendant’s use of land] is reasonable the defendant will

not be liable for consequent harm to his neighbour’s enjoyment of his land’.

So if a manufacturing business made continuous loud noise on an industrial estate this

would be unlikely to amount to private nuisance, whereas if the business made the same

noise in a residential area it almost certainly would. In Sturges vBridgman (1879)Thesiger

LJ said that what would amount to nuisance in one area of London might well not amount

to nuisance in another.

t