Who can sue

Person who has some proprietary

interest in law can maintain action in
nuisance. (those who in actual
possession)

Malone v Laskey: wife of the occupier injured

by bracket and the mishap was due to vibrations
comes from D adjoin property. The court denied
her remedy as she did not have any possessory
interest in land.
Khorasandijan v Bush: The court held that
telephone harassment is an actionable
interference with her ordinary and reasonable use
and enjoyment of property, she was mere
licensee on her mothers property and had no
proprietary interest.
Hunter v Canary Wharf: The claimants lived
in the Isle of Dogs and complained that the
erection of the Canary Wharf Tower interfered
with their television reception. A mere licensee
however has no right to sue, the occupiers
family would not be entitled to sue.
Nuisance by encroachment and direct physical
damage to the land or property is clearly
recoverable in the form of a diminution in the
value of the land.

6. Conduct of previous occupier

An defendant will be held liable for
the interference previously caused by
the previous occupier, if he knows or
ought to know of its existence, but
does not take steps to alleviate it.
Generally, a landlord who has surrended
possession and control of a certain
premises will not be liable for nuisance,
except for the three situations below:
(a) if he has authorised the nuisance,
(b) if he knew or ought to have known of
the nuisance before the tenancy become
effective,
(c) if he has covenanted to repair or has a
right to enter the premises to conduct
repair works.

8. Local Authority and Government

Koperasi Pasaraya v UDA holding S/B
DBKL and the government were not liable
for pure economic loss arising from public
nuisance or breach of statutory duties.
Thus only UDA was found 1/3 liable for
the pure economic losses suffered by the
plaintiff supermarket.

Who can be sued

Creator: Source or creator of the interference, whether or not he occupies the land
from which the interference emanates, will liable for nuisance.
There is no requirement that the defendant creator must have an interest over the
land or that the land belongs to him.
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
The D company was a statutory sewerage undertaker and responsible for the
removal of sewage. Overtime, sewers became inadequate for removing surface
and on occasion being discharged into claimants front and back garden.

Occupier: An occupier must have knowledge of state of affairs on his

premise is liable in nuisance. The occupier will be liable for all positive
acts of interference, including omissions which give rise to a nuisance. The
occupier is also liable for acts and omission of 3rd parties.
1. Servant or employee
An employer is liable for the nuisance caused by persons who are subject
to his control, based on the principles of vicarious liability.
Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Ltd
The defendants oil tanker ran aground in an estuary partly due to weather
conditions and partly due to carrying a heavy load and a fault in the
steering. The master discharged 400 tons of oil in order to free the tanker.
The oil drifted onto the claimants land including a marine lake which it
had to close until it had been cleaned at a substantial cost to the claimant.
Applying this principle, it is clear that the discharge of oil was not a private
nuisance, because it did not involve the use by the defendants of any land,
but only of a ship at sea.
2. Independent Contractor
Spicer v Smee: Faulty wiring system not of the D but by the independent
contractor caused fire to the Ps house. This does not apply in nuisance.
Bower v Peate: If the nature of work that a man employs another to do is
expected to give rise to injurious consequences to his neighbour, he must
do all that is necessary to prevent the injury from materialising and he
cannot pass over this burden to independent contractor.
3. Trespasser: Sedleigh Denfield v OCallaghan
A trespasser subsequently placed a pipe in the ditch without knowledge of
D, person who cleaning the ditch knew about the piping of the ditch.
Heavy rainfall caused Ps land flooded. The court found that the defendant
liable as his employee have known that the condition of the pipe gave risk
to flodding and this knowledge was imputed to the D.
4. Licensees: Parimala a/l Muthusamy v Projek Lebuhraya Utara
Selatan Plaintiffs travelling with cars driven by deceased hit a stray cow
through a breach in fencing system. The defendant didnt know the breach
of fence occurred and cannot be said to continue the nuisance since its
foreknowledge was not proven.
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council: The council was aware of and
tolerated the travellers conduct. It has created the nuisance by allowing
the licensees to occupy his land and use it as a base for causing unlawful
disturbance to his neighbours.
5.Natural causes: The occupier will be liable if the occupier knows or
ought to know of the interference.
Goldman v Hargrave: Tree strucked by lightning and started to burn. D
did not take any reasonable steps to douse the burning tree. D liable for his
inaction. An occupier must take reasonable steps to remedy a potentially
hazardous state of affair, include those that arise naturally.
Leakey v National Trust: If an occupiers knows that there is natural
hazard on his land so that the other person might suffer damage, the
occupier is under a duty to prevent or minimise the risk of damage from
materialising.
Wu Siew Ying v Gunung Tunggal Quarry & Construction S/B
The P s plant nursery was destroyed when a natural limestone hill
collapsed and fell onto it. P could not succeed as he could not prove
decisively that the collapse of the hill was caused by the quarrying
operation.