General Defences in Tort
Defenses Against Nuisance Under Law of Torts
1. Introduction
Nuisance in tort law refers to an act or omission that unlawfully interferes with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
When a person is sued for nuisance, they can raise certain defenses to justify or excuse their actions. These defenses help determine whether the interference was lawful or excusable under the circumstances.
2. Types of Nuisance
Private Nuisance: Unreasonable interference with a person’s enjoyment of their private property.
Public Nuisance: An act affecting the public or community at large.
The defenses discussed apply primarily to private nuisance, but some apply to public nuisance as well.
3. Key Defenses Against Nuisance
a) Prescription
If the defendant has been causing the nuisance for a long period of time (usually 20 years) openly and continuously without complaint, they may acquire a right by prescription to continue the activity.
The law presumes that the plaintiff acquiesced to the nuisance.
Case:
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
A doctor who used his premises noisily for 20 years was allowed to continue because of prescription despite complaint by a new neighbor.
b) Statutory Authority
If the nuisance arises due to actions authorized by statute or government regulation, the defendant is generally protected.
This means the act is lawful under the statute, and no liability arises.
However, if the statute is silent on compensation or nuisance, the plaintiff may still claim damages if the act was negligent.
Case:
Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd. (1981) AC 1001
The House of Lords held that the statutory authority to operate an oil refinery protected the defendants from nuisance claims even though pollution occurred.
c) Act of God / Natural Causes
If the nuisance is caused by a natural event beyond human control (e.g., flood, storm), the defendant is not liable.
The defendant must prove that they took reasonable precautions.
d) Coming to the Nuisance
If the plaintiff moves to a place where the nuisance already existed, this can be a defense.
The plaintiff’s awareness of the nuisance prior to arrival weakens their claim.
However, this defense is not absolute; if the defendant’s use becomes unreasonable or intensifies, liability can arise.
Case:
Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
The court ruled that “coming to the nuisance” is not a complete defense; a long-standing nuisance could still be actionable.
e) Contributory Nuisance or Contributory Negligence
If the plaintiff contributes to the nuisance or has behaved negligently to worsen the situation, their claim may be reduced or barred.
For example, if the plaintiff’s own actions aggravate the nuisance or the harm suffered.
f) Necessity
If the nuisance was caused to prevent a greater harm or emergency, the defendant may claim necessity.
This is a justification defense.
g) Use of Land for Ordinary Social Utility
If the defendant’s use of the land is for ordinary and reasonable social purposes, it may be a defense.
Courts balance interests between social utility and individual rights.
h) Consent
If the plaintiff consented to the nuisance (expressly or impliedly), they cannot later complain.
Consent can be a full defense.
4. Important Case Law on Defenses Against Nuisance
Case 1: Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852
Established that “coming to the nuisance” is not an absolute defense.
Also emphasized the importance of locality and context in nuisance claims.
Case 2: Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd. (1981) AC 1001
Held that statutory authority can be a complete defense to nuisance.
But statutory authority must expressly or impliedly authorize the nuisance.
Case 3: Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan (1940) AC 880
Showed that liability may arise if the defendant continues a nuisance they did not initially create.
Implied defense of lack of control if reasonable steps are taken to abate nuisance.
Case 4: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
While primarily a case on strict liability, it demonstrates that natural causes and acts of God can absolve liability in nuisance claims.
5. Summary Table of Defenses
| Defense | Description | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Prescription | Long continuous use without complaint (usually 20 years) | Establishes right to continue |
| Statutory Authority | Act done under legal authority | Protects from liability |
| Act of God | Natural unavoidable events | No liability |
| Coming to the Nuisance | Plaintiff knew of nuisance before moving | Partial defense |
| Contributory Negligence | Plaintiff partly at fault | Reduces liability |
| Necessity | Act to prevent greater harm | Justification |
| Social Utility | Reasonable use for social purposes | Balancing interests |
| Consent | Plaintiff agreed to nuisance | Complete defense |
6. Conclusion
Defenses to nuisance claims serve to balance the rights of landowners and the social utility of land use. The courts consider factors such as the nature of interference, duration, locality, statutory authority, and the conduct of both parties.
Understanding these defenses helps in assessing liability and guiding actions to prevent or resolve nuisance disputes effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments