Nuisance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 24 Junio 1940

    A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. It is impossible to give any precise or universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society.

  • Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Marzo 1957

    Even the answe "Two's company, three's a crowd" will ot commenad the assent of those present unless they first agree on "which two". I prefer to look to the reason of the thing and to any that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its reange or so indisoriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be tken on the rsponsibility of the community at large.

  • Manchester, Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of v Farnworth
    • House of Lords
    • 28 Noviembre 1929

    When Parliament has authorised a certain thing to be made or done in a certain place, there can be no action for nuisance caused, by the making or doing of that thing if the nuisance is the inevitable result of the making or doing so authorised.

  • Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Enero 1981

    It is now well settled that where Parliament by express direction or by necessary implication has authorised the construction and use of an undertaking or works, that carries with it an authority to do what is authorised with immunity from any action based on nuisance.

  • Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 Diciembre 1995

    I can well see that in such a case the public interest must be allowed to and prevail that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction (though whether that should preclude any award of damages in lieu is a question which may need further consideration). The Court should be slow to acquiesce in the extinction of private rights without compensation as a result of administrative decisions which cannot be appealed and are difficult to challenge.

  • Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
    • House of Lords
    • 09 Diciembre 1993

    Of course, although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principle of reasonable user — the principle of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which "

  • Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd (Inverpool.)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 03 Junio 1954

    In an aotion for a public nuisance, once the nuisance is proved and the defendant is shown to have caused it, then the legal burden is shifted on to the defendant to justify or excuse himself. If ho fails to do so, he is held liable, whereas in an action for negligence the legal burden in most cases remains throughout on the plaintiff. He must plead and prove a sufficient justification or excuse.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT