Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK1 › Tort › Question
SQE1 · FLK1 · Tort

Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher — SQE1 Tort question

A worked single-best-answer question on nuisance and rylands v fletcher, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

Doreen owns the freehold of a house in a quiet residential street, where she lives with her adult son Victor, who pays no rent and has no tenancy. Six months ago Grindstone Ltd opened a 24-hour vehicle repair workshop next door. Loud machinery runs through the night, regularly preventing both of them from sleeping. Doreen and Victor both wish to sue Grindstone in private nuisance.

Which of the following best describes who may sue Grindstone in private nuisance?

  1. ABoth Doreen and Victor, because both are lawfully living in the house and affected by the noise.
  2. BNeither of them, because noise is a matter for statutory nuisance and the local authority, not private nuisance.
  3. COnly Victor, because personal discomfort is suffered by individuals rather than by property owners.
  4. DOnly Doreen, because a claim in private nuisance requires a proprietary interest in, or exclusive possession of, the land affected.
  5. EBoth Doreen and Victor, provided they can show that the workshop's noise caused them personal injury.
Show answer and reasoning
D is the best answer. Private nuisance is a tort against land. In Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd the House of Lords held that only a person with a proprietary interest in the land, or exclusive possession of it, may sue. Doreen as freehold owner in occupation can sue; Victor, a mere licensee, cannot, although the discomfort to household members may be reflected in the damages for the loss of amenity of the land.

Rule: Only a person with a proprietary interest in, or exclusive possession of, the affected land can sue in private nuisance.

  • A Living lawfully in the property is not enough; Hunter v Canary Wharf requires a proprietary interest or exclusive possession. (wrong rule)
  • B Excessive noise can be both a statutory nuisance and an actionable private nuisance. (wrong rule)
  • C Private nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land, so the claimant must have an interest in that land. (wrong rule)
  • E Personal injury is not recoverable in private nuisance, and interference with enjoyment of land does not require it. (wrong rule)

Source: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655

Practise more Tort   All Tort subtopics