248 Chapter 9Nuisance, trespass, defamation and vicarious liability
As we have seen, the location of the claimant’s land will be a factor in deciding the way in
which he or she can expect to use and enjoy the land. So a farmer who kept noisy cockerels
in a completely rural area would be unlikely to commit private nuisance. The length of
time for which harm is caused is also relevant in deciding whether an interference is
unreasonable. A manufacturer who conducted a noisy cleaning process once a year would
be less likely to commit nuisance than a manufacturer who made a similar noise every day.
Although one-off events can amount to nuisance, most nuisances involve continuous
interference.
As the interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land must be unreasonable,
abnormally sensitive claimants are not protected.If a defendant causes the interference maliciously this is more likely to amount to a nuisance.Any person who has control of premises where the nuisance is caused can be liable, as can
an occupier of premises who gives authority for the nuisance to be committed. Landlords
are not generally liable for nuisance committed by their tenants. However, they can be liable
if they either knew, or should have known, about the nuisance when they let the premises
to the tenant.Robinson vKilvert (1889) (Court of Appeal)The claimant occupied the ground floor of the defendant’s premises and stored brown
paper there. Heat from the defendant’s boiler, which was in the basement of the premises,
damaged the brown paper. The heat generated would not have damaged ordinary paper,
but brown paper is especially sensitive to heat. The claimant wanted an injunction to pre-
vent the defendant from using the boiler.
HeldThe defendant was not committing a nuisance and so an injunction was not granted.
Lopes LJ said: ‘...a man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain
because it is injured by his neighbour doing something lawful on his property, if it is some-
thing which would not injure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade.’Christie vDavey (1893)Much to the defendant’s annoyance, his next door neighbour gave music lessons and held
musical parties. The defendant retaliated by blowing whistles, shrieking, shouting, banging
trays and hammering. The claimant asked the court to grant an injunction to prevent the
defendant from continuing to make the malicious noises.
HeldThe defendant’s actions amounted to a nuisance because they were done mali-
ciously. Therefore, an injunction was granted.claimant asked the court for an injunction to prevent the defendant from keeping the
cockerels on his land.
HeldThe defendant had committed a nuisance and so an injunction could be granted.