In English law, nuisance is a tort concerned with unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or with rights enjoyed by the
public at large. It plays a central role in resolving conflicts between neighbouring land uses and in regulating activities that affect the
environment and public spaces.
Nuisance is traditionally divided into private nuisance and public nuisance. Private nuisance protects a claimant’s interest
in land against unreasonable interference, such as noise, smells, smoke, vibrations, or encroachment. Public nuisance concerns acts or
omissions that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public.
In private nuisance, liability depends on whether the interference is unreasonable in all the circumstances. Relevant factors include the
nature and extent of the interference, its duration and frequency, the character of the locality, and the sensitivity of the claimant’s use
of land. Nuisance is not based on fault alone; a defendant may be liable even where they have taken reasonable care.
Typical nuisance claims involve ongoing noise nuisance from neighbouring properties or businesses, persistent smells or fumes, pollution of land or water, overhanging branches or roots, and activities that interfere with access, light, or quiet enjoyment. Public nuisance may arise from obstruction of highways, dangerous activities affecting the public, or widespread environmental harm.
Remedies for nuisance include damages and injunctions, with courts often required to balance the competing interests of the parties. In cases of continuing nuisance, liability may persist for as long as the interference remains unabated, and limitation issues can be significant.
Planning permission and statutory authority may be relevant but do not automatically prevent liability.
Nuisance is particularly important in neighbour disputes, environmental litigation, land use conflicts, and claims involving local
authorities and infrastructure projects. Its flexible standards allow courts to adapt the law to changing patterns of land use while
maintaining protection against unreasonable interference.
See also: Private nuisance; Public nuisance; Continuing nuisance; Coming to the nuisance; Noise nuisance; Rylands v Fletcher; Environmental liability; Injunctions; Land use.
A tannery's solvent spillages seeped through the ground and contaminated a water company's borehole 1.3 miles away. The House of Lords held that foreseeability of damage is a prerequisite for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and since the damage was not foreseeable at the time of spillage, the tannery was not liable.
Following a successful nuisance claim regarding noise from a motorsport stadium and track, consequential issues arose concerning suspension of the injunction, landlord liability for tenant's nuisance, and whether costs orders including success fees and ATE premiums infringed Convention rights. The Court addressed landlord participation in nuisance and flagged serious concerns about litigation costs.
The owners of Walcot Hall Estate claimed noise from RAF Harrier jets at nearby RAF Wittering constituted nuisance and violated their human rights. The court found the extreme noise was a nuisance but refused an injunction due to public interest in national defence, instead awarding £950,000 damages as compensation.
A hotel collapsed due to a massive landslip caused by natural cliff instability. The hotel owners sued the local council who owned the land between the hotel and the sea. The Court of Appeal held that while a measured duty of care existed regarding land support, liability was limited to damage that was reasonably foreseeable without extensive geological investigation.
Soil and debris fell from the National Trust's hillside onto neighbouring properties due to natural geological instability. The Court of Appeal held that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent naturally occurring hazards on their land from damaging neighbours' property, following Goldman v Hargrave.
Mr Marcic's property suffered repeated flooding from overloaded public sewers. He sued Thames Water in nuisance and under the Human Rights Act. The House of Lords held that the statutory scheme under the Water Industry Act 1991 provided the exclusive remedy for inadequate drainage, precluding common law nuisance claims and satisfying Convention rights.
Overseas Tankship’s ship Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil in Sydney harbour. Welding sparks ignited it, destroying nearby repair ships. The Privy Council held that even a very small but serious risk must be guarded against if reasonably foreseeable, shaping negligence breach analysis.
Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir which burst and flooded Fletcher's neighbouring mine. Despite Rylands having no knowledge of old mine shafts that caused the flooding, he was held strictly liable. This landmark case established that one who brings something dangerous onto their land is liable if it escapes and causes damage.
Transco’s gas main ran in a council embankment. A fractured water pipe supplying council flats saturated landfill, collapsing the embankment and endangering the main. The House of Lords preserved but narrowed Rylands v Fletcher and held the council’s ordinary water supply created no strict liability.
Barratt obtained planning permission for a housing development and had a statutory right under section 106 Water Industry Act 1991 to connect its drains to Welsh Water’s sewer. Welsh Water blocked the connection with concrete. The Court of Appeal held Barratt could not recover damages in nuisance, trespass or negligence for economic loss, leaving only a limited claim for physical pipe damage.
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive