Defenses against Nuisance under Law of Torts
1. Meaning of Nuisance (Brief)
A nuisance is an act or omission that unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of someone’s property. Nuisance can be:
Public Nuisance: Affects the community or public at large.
Private Nuisance: Affects a specific individual or a definite number of people.
The law of torts provides remedies, but there are defenses that can reduce or negate liability.
2. General Defenses to Nuisance
There are several recognized defenses in nuisance cases:
A. Statutory Authority
Meaning: If the defendant is acting under a valid statute or law, they may not be liable for nuisance caused by acts authorized by that law.
Essence: The law permits the act, so no tortious liability arises.
Case law:
Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd. (1981) – The defendant was authorized by statute to operate an oil refinery. The court held that statutory authority could be a defense to nuisance if the activity was within the scope authorized.
B. Prescription (Long Use / Right to Continue)
Meaning: If the defendant has been carrying out the nuisance for a long period (typically 20 years in common law), they may acquire a right to continue.
Essence: Long-standing use can be a defense if it has been peaceful, continuous, and without objection.
Case law:
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – The doctor complained about noise from a neighbor’s machinery. Court held that the nuisance could not be claimed because the neighbor had been operating for many years.
Halsey v. Esso Petroleum (1961) – Use of land for industrial purposes had become a long-standing practice; defense partially successful.
C. Consent of the Plaintiff (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
Meaning: If the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the nuisance, they cannot sue.
Essence: You cannot complain about something you agreed to tolerate.
Case law:
Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan (1940) – Consent must be real and informed. Implied consent may arise if the plaintiff knew and continued to live with the activity.
D. Coming to the Nuisance
Meaning: If the plaintiff knows about the nuisance but moves closer to it anyway, it may be a partial defense.
Essence: Not a full defense, but relevant in assessing damages.
Case law:
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – The doctor moved his practice near a long-standing factory. Court weighed “coming to the nuisance” but did not bar the claim entirely; just affected compensation.
E. Necessity
Meaning: If the act causing nuisance is necessary to prevent a greater harm, it may be excused.
Essence: Public or private necessity can justify interference.
Case law:
Southwark London Borough Council v. Mills (1999) – Noise from council tenants’ flat was not actionable because it was reasonable and necessary use; necessity considered in public context.
F. Act of God / Natural Causes
Meaning: If the nuisance arises from natural events beyond human control, the defendant is not liable.
Case law:
Nichols v. Marsland (1876) – Exceptional rainfall caused a flood from defendant’s ornamental lakes. Court held that act of God was a defense to nuisance.
G. Contributory Negligence / Plaintiff’s Own Fault
Meaning: If the plaintiff contributed to the nuisance or failed to take reasonable precautions, it may reduce liability or damages.
Case law:
Tetley v. Chitty (1986) – Landowner leased land to a go-kart club. Injuries were partly due to plaintiff’s negligence; damages reduced accordingly.
3. Summary Table
| Defense | Explanation | Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory Authority | Act authorized by law | Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd. |
| Prescription | Long-standing use gives right to continue | Sturges v. Bridgman |
| Consent (Volenti) | Plaintiff agreed to tolerate the act | Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan |
| Coming to the Nuisance | Plaintiff moved closer to the nuisance | Sturges v. Bridgman |
| Necessity | Act done to prevent greater harm | Southwark London Borough Council v. Mills |
| Act of God | Nuisance caused by natural forces beyond control | Nichols v. Marsland |
| Contributory Negligence | Plaintiff partly at fault | Tetley v. Chitty |
✅ Key Points to Remember
Not all defenses completely absolve liability; some reduce damages.
The context matters – industrial, residential, public nuisance cases differ.
Courts often weigh reasonableness, necessity, and history of use when deciding.
RELATED Blog
0 comments