Public Nuisance CASES
In English law, public nuisance is an unlawful interference with a public right—such as the public’s use of the highway, public health, safety, comfort or convenience—that affects a class of the public. It is distinct from private nuisance, which protects a landowner’s use and enjoyment of their own land. A private individual can sue in public nuisance only if they suffer special damage over and above the public at large; otherwise the claim is usually brought by the Attorney General or a public authority. (The criminal aspect is now largely statutory; this page focuses on the civil tort.)
Definition and principles
The claimant must show: (i) interference with a public right or the public’s reasonable comfort and convenience; (ii) impact on a class of the public (not just a few individuals); and (iii) that the interference was unreasonable and caused the claimant loss. A private claimant needs special damage—for example, personal injury, property damage, or particular economic loss beyond that suffered by others in the affected class. Fault is not always essential, but foreseeability and reasonableness matter; large-scale, long-running interferences are more readily unlawful than brief, trivial ones.
Who can sue and for what
- Attorney General / public bodies: can seek injunctions or other relief to protect the public interest without proving special damage.
- Private individuals: may recover if they suffer special damage (e.g., injury from an unsafe obstruction in the highway, measurable trading loss from a prolonged street blockage, or property damage from widespread emissions).
Common examples
- Highways: substantial obstruction or danger—scaffolding, skips, crowd control or roadworks arranged so as to impede the public beyond what is reasonably necessary.
- Pollution and emissions: smoke, fumes, dust, noise or discharges affecting a neighbourhood or wider area.
- Unsafe structures or activities: a building or installation posing a danger to passers-by; mass events run without adequate management, causing widespread disruption or risk.
Defences and limits
- Statutory authority: a strong defence where Parliament has authorised the activity provided it is carried out with due care.
- Permits and planning: permissions inform reasonableness but are not automatic defences; activities must still be conducted to avoid unlawful interference.
- De minimis and reasonableness: fleeting or trivial interferences are not actionable.
Remedies
Injunctions (prohibitory or mandatory) are common to restrain or abate the nuisance. Private claimants with special damage may recover damages for personal injury, property damage and proven consequential economic loss. Public authorities may also use regulatory routes in parallel (for example, statutory nuisance regimes or licensing powers).
Relationship to neighbouring areas
Private nuisance: protects land-related interests of individuals; no need to show “class of the public”, but the claimant generally needs a proprietary interest. Statutory nuisance (environmental health): a regulatory framework enabling abatement notices and prosecutions; it can run alongside civil claims. Highway law: many highway interferences are framed as public nuisance, sometimes alongside statutory powers dealing with obstruction or danger.
Practical importance
For claimants, identify the public right affected, the size and characteristics of the affected class, and the special damage suffered. Preserve evidence of scale and duration (logs, measurements, complaints data, photographs) and consider whether public-law or regulatory avenues offer faster relief. For defendants, show why the impact was reasonable, short-lived or properly controlled; document permits, risk assessments, mitigation steps and liaison with authorities.
See also: Private nuisance; Statutory nuisance; Highways and obstruction; Injunctions; De minimis; Damages in lieu of injunction; Proprietary interest.
Home » Public Nuisance
Chandler was convicted of inciting public nuisance and causing public nuisance by obstructing highways during demonstrations against the Greek Royal Visit. He appealed on grounds concerning jury challenges, arguing he had a legal right to 'stand by' jurors after exhausting peremptory challenges. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, ruling no such right exists for the accused. Facts The appellant, Terence Norman Chandler, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in December 1963 of one count of inciting others to cause a public nuisance by obstructing the highway and two counts of causing a public nuisance himself. The offences
Owners of the Harrow Hotel claimed compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for loss caused by bridge improvement works. The House of Lords limited compensation to loss that would be actionable at common law, but confirmed that temporary injurious affection to land can be compensable. Facts The Harrow Hotel was a family-run business comprising converted houses on Pinner Road (A404) near Roxborough Bridge over the Metropolitan Line. Between 1989 and 1994, the London Borough of Harrow (“the Council”) carried out bridge improvement works under statutory powers incorporating the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Although a compulsory purchase
The tanker Inverpool stranded in the Ribble estuary. To refloat her, the master discharged about 400 tons of oil, which polluted Southport Corporation’s foreshore and Marine Lake. The Court of Appeal majority held the shipowners liable in public nuisance and negligence; the master was not personally liable. Facts The defendants owned the small steam tanker “Inverpool”, commanded by the second defendant, Captain McMeakin. On 3 December 1950 she left Liverpool with 736 tons of heavy fuel oil for Preston. After waiting at the Nelson Buoy for the tide, she proceeded towards the Ribble channel in rough but navigable weather. Between
The House of Lords held that public nuisance requires common injury to the public, not merely multiple harms to individuals. It disapproved earlier telephone‑call cases, emphasised legal certainty under article 7 ECHR, and allowed both appeals, quashing Mr Goldstein’s conviction and Mr Rimmington’s indictment. Facts Rimmington Mr Rimmington was indicted on a single count of common law public nuisance. The particulars alleged that he: “between the 25th day of May 1992 and the 13th day of June 2001, caused a nuisance to the public, namely by sending 538 separate postal packages, as detailed in the schedule …, containing racially offensive
Children born with upper limb deformities alleged their mothers were exposed to toxic materials during Corby Borough Council's land reclamation programme. The Council sought to strike out the public nuisance claim, arguing damages for personal injury cannot be recovered in public nuisance. The Court of Appeal held this was an arguable claim and dismissed the strike-out application. Facts Eighteen claimants were born between 1986 and 1999 with deformities of the upper limbs. Corby Borough Council had acquired approximately 680 acres of heavily contaminated land from British Steel Corporation between 1983 and 1989 for reclamation and redevelopment. The claimants alleged their
