Public Nuisance in UK Law

It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is "public" which materially affects the reasonable comfort and conventience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. The sphere of the nuisnce may be described generally as "the eighbourhood': but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitutie a class of the public is a question of fact in every case.

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.

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.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to see why a person whose life, safety or health has been endangered and adversely affected by an unlawful act or omission and who suffers personal injuries as a result should not be able to recover damages. But the two torts are distinct and the rights protected by them are different.

The question to which this appeal gives rise is whether the law today should recognise that the public highway is a public place, on which all manner of reasonable activities may go on. Provided these activities are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the general public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass.

However, in my judgement it is within the proper sphere of a local authority's activities to try and put an end to all public nuisances in its area provided always that it considers that it is expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area to do so in a particular case. Certainly my experience over the last 40 years tells me that authorities regularly do this and so far as I know this has never attracted adverse judicial comment.

One of the principal differences between an action for a public nuisance and an aotion for negligence is the burden of proof. 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.