untitled

252 Chapter 9Nuisance, trespass, defamation and vicarious liability

offence, it is possible for a private citizen to sue. However, in order to be able to bring an

action the claimant must show that the nuisance has caused more damage to him or her

than to the public generally. Only a person who has some control over the nuisance can be

liable for public nuisance.

Many actions for public nuisance concern obstructing a highway. In such cases the par-

ticular damage which the claimant must prove might consist of lost business. However, no

claim will succeed if others have also lost business, even if the claimant has lost more than

they have. The claimant must show a particular kind of loss, over and above the kind of loss

suffered by others. Other recent examples of public nuisance include organising a rave and

picketing by trade unionists.

An obstruction of the highway which is both temporary and reasonable will not be a

public nuisance. However, a badly parked car which partially blocks a highway has been

held to be a public nuisance.

Earlier in this chapter we saw that only a person with some kind of interest in property

can sue for private nuisance. Public nuisance has no such requirement. Furthermore,

prescription is not a defence to public nuisance.

Remedies

Injunction

A person suffering special damage may apply for an injunction to prevent the continuation

of a public nuisance, although the permission of the Attorney-General may be necessary.

Local authorities can also seek an injunction to gain relief from a public nuisance if this

would promote and protect the interests of people living in the area.

Damages

Damages can be claimed only in respect of a type of loss which was reasonably foreseeable

under the Wagon Moundtest. Damages for pure economic loss (see p. 228) can be claimed

in an action for public nuisance. It is probably the case that such damages cannot be claimed

in an action for private nuisance. Damages might be claimed in respect of lost business,

personal injury or damage to property.

Defences

Statutory authority, contributory negligence and consent are available as defences.

The rule in Rylands vFletcher

The rule in Rylands vFletcheris the name given to a tort of strict liability. In the case itself

the rule was explained by Blackburn J:

The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything

likely to do mischief if it escapes, must bring it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is... answer-

able for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

The rule applies only if the defendant’s use of the land is ‘non-natural’. So it would not

apply if land became covered in weeds, or flooded by water which was not deliberately

accumulated.