NUISANCE

PUBLIC NUISANCE

 Dr. Ram raj singh v. Babulal

 Rose v. Milles
 Campbell v. Paddington corporation
 Winterbottom v. Lord Derby

PRIVATE NUISANCE

1. UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE

 Sturges v. Bridgman
 Radhey shyam v. Gur Prasad
 Shanmughavel chettiar v. Sri Ramkumar ginning firm
 J. Chadrasekaran v. V.D. Kesavan
 Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir

SENSITIVE PLAINTIFF

 Robbinson v. Kilvert
 Heath v. Mayor of Brighton

Does nuisance connote state of affairs

 Stone v. Bolton

MALICE

 Mayor of Bradford Corp. v. Pickles

 Allen v. Flood
 Christie v. Davey
 Gaunt v. Fynney
 Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v. Emmett

2. INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE OR ENJOYMENT OF LAND

a. INJURY TO THE PROPERTY

 St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping ( fumes – Trees and shrubs )

NUISANCE TO INCOPOREAL PROPERTY

 Stroyan v. Knowles ( Factory – withdrawal of support – substantial damage )

 RIGHT TO SUPPORT BY GRANT OR PRESCRIPTION

 Partridge v. Scott ( Right to support by grant )

 Dalton v. Angus ( Plaintiff factory collided – 20 years – adjoining lands )

INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO LIGHT AND AIR

(A) ENGLAND

 Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd ( Defendant building – Diminished the light )

RIGHT TO AIR

 Webb v. Bird ( Defendant building – blocked passage of air – plaintiffs ancient windmill)
 Bass v. Gregory

(B) INDIA

 Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd ( Suit for disturbance of easement )
 Polsue and Alfieri Ltd. V. Rushmere ( Noisy locality – Defendants printing machinery )

3. DAMAGE

 Fay v. Prentice ( Cornice – plaintiff Garden )

NUISANCE ON HIGHWAYS

 Barber v. Penley ( Defendant’s theatre – Plaintiff premises )

 Dwyer v. Mansfield ( Scarcity of potatoes – Neighbouring shopkeepers for nuisance )
 Ware v. Garston Haulage Co. Ltd ( Defendant lorry – Motor cycle – No rear light )
 Leanse v. Egerton ( Broken window – no repairs – plaintiff injury )

PROJECTIONS

 Noble v. Harrison ( Branch of tree broke – Plaintiff on highway – No nuisance )

 Caminer v. Northern & London Investment Trust Ltd ( Elm tree – Elm butt rot –
damaged car and some persons )
 Tarry v. Ashton ( Large Lamp – Decayed condition – Independent contractor failed his
duty – nuisance )

DEFENCES

EFFECTUAL DEFENCES

1. Prescriptive right to commit nuisance

  Sturges v. Bridgman

INEFFECTUAL DEFENCES

PUBLIC GOOD

 Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lightin Co ( Electric powerhouse – Violent vibrations

– damage of building – No defence )
 Adams v. Ursell ( Injunction against Fried fish shop – Residential part of street )
 R v. Train ( Laying of Tram lines in street – No defence )

REASONABLE CARE

 Rapier v. London Tramways Co. ( Stench – Horses to draw their trams – No defence )

PLAINTIFF COMING TO NUISANCE

 Bills v. Halls ( Diverse noisome, noxious, fumes from Tallow Chandlery – 3years
business in existence – No defence )