Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 1

Law - Essay Example The ways in which a defendant may interfere with the interests of the claimant is either by affecting materially his land or affecting his use or enjoyment of land or the interference with the servitudes and similar rights over the land. The most important case in respect of material interference with property and interference with use or enjoyment and their distinction was St Helens Smelting Co. v. Tipping1 whereby the House of Lords that the surrounding circumstances were important but there were different provisions when the concern was in respect of material injury to the said property. There had been different reasons which had been attribute to such a reasoning a few included that greater protection was offered to the prior aspect of property than to enjoyment derived from the property or the ease of quantifying. The next issue that needs to be considered in respect of nuisance is material damage to property and whether the defendant is held liable for such material damage. The important aspect in respect of nuisance which relates to this question is that of interference with the use or enjoyment of land. It is important to mention that not every interference in respect of enjoyment of property is held to be actionable as can be seen in the judgment of Vice-Chancellor in Walter v. Selfe2 that the inconvenience must be ‘considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort...of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people’. Thus a balance must be struck with enjoyment of use of occupier and his neighbour (Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co, Ltd.)3. The interference is dependent on reasonableness which in turn is dependent on a number factors that duration of the interference, sensitivity of the plaintiff, character of neighbourh ood and fault of the defendant. The first aspect is that of duration which should be appreciable. (Cunard v. Antifyre Ltd. where it was said to be substantial length of time)4 . However, in Harrison v. Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co.5 it was stated that something which would normally constitute to be nuisance would because of its temporary and useful nature be excused. As far as sensitivity is considered, the courts would not allow a claim for an abnormal sensitivity of the claimant or his property which makes a undisruptive activity to be harmful to the defendant. The next aspect is that of character of the neighbourhood which as stated in St Helens is not to be considered in respect of cases which deal with physical damage to property, however, it is applicable to cases where the interference is in respect of enjoyment or use. In Sturges v. Bridgman Thesiger LJ stated ‘Whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract considerat ion of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances; what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey; and where a locality is devoted to a particular trade or manufacture carried on by the traders and manufacturers in a particular established manner not constituting a public nuisance. Judges and juries would be justified in finding, and may be trusted to find, that the trade or manufacture so carried on in that locality is not a private or actionable wrong.’