References: [1860] EngR 1082, (1860) 3 B & S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erle CJ, Williams and Keating JJ, Bramwell and Wilde BB
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance according to the ordinary rule of law; and this whatever he locality may be where he act is done; and where, on trial of such an action, it appears that the act complained of was done on the land of the defendant, the jury cannot properly be asked whether the causing of the nuisance was a reasonable use by the defendant of his own land.
Bramwell B said: ‘There must be, then, some principle on which such cases must be excepted. It seems to me that that principle may be deduced from the character of these cases, and is this, viz: that those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action . . There is an obvious necessity for such a principle as I have mentioned. It is as much for the advantage of one owner as of another; for the very nuisance the one complains of, as the result of the ordinary use of his neighbour’s land, he himself will create in the ordinary use of his own, and the reciprocal nuisances are of a comparatively trifling character. The convenience of such a rule may be indicated by calling it a rule of give and take, live and let live.’
This case cites:
- See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 10, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037)
Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1862] LR 3 B&S 62, Bailii, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, Commonlii, (1862) 3 B & S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27)
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . . - Cited – Southwark London Borough Council -v- Mills/Tanner; Baxter -v- Camden London Borough Council HL (Times 22-Oct-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P & CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L & TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138)
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . . - Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
