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. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been in juriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue.

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 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.

The purpose of the law which makes it a crime and a tort to do an unlawful act which endangers the life, safety or health of the public is surely to protect the public against the consequences of acts or omissions which do endanger their lives, safety or health. One obvious consequence of such an act or omission is personal injury. The purpose of this law is not to protect the property interests of the public. But the two torts are distinct and the rights protected by them are different.

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.

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.