The document summarizes research conducted on whether citizens in the community of Naggo Head are aware of acts that constitute the tort of private nuisance. Surveys were conducted asking residents questions about private nuisance. The findings showed that while most residents were familiar with the concept of private nuisance, many were unaware of its specific elements and the legal remedies available. The researchers concluded more education is needed for citizens on private nuisance laws and respecting neighbors. They recommended residents educate themselves on private nuisance.

1. 1
The Awareness of Private Nuisance: “My Neighbour is
Becoming a Bother”
Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE)
The Cedar Grove Academy
Law Unit 2

2. 2
Group Members:
Britallia Bygrave-
Alexi Brooks-
Alyssa Mitchell-
Lerissa Whitfeild-
Title Page#
Description of Research Problem/Issue Statement---------------------------------------------- 4
Aims/Objectives-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
Description of Methodology Employed----------------------------------------------------------- 6-7
Presentation of Findings----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-12
Discussion of Findings----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13-14
Conclusion/Recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
References---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

3. 3
Firstly, and more importantly, special thanks must be accredited to the God Almighty for
His guidance and directing spirit that has influenced the researchers whilst doing this internal
assignment.
The researchers would like to extend special gratitude to Ms. Marrit and fellow
classmates for their assistance and input in doing this research. Gratitude is also expressed
towards the institution in which the researchers attend. The Cedar Grove Academy for
allowing us to explore our interests and mobilizing us for what lies ahead.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

4. 4
The purpose of this research is to investigate: ‘Whether the Citizens of Naggo Head are
Aware of the acts that Amound to the Tort of Private Nuisance’.
The issues surrounding private nuisance are becoming increasingly prevalent, especially as
our society becomes more urbanized where houses and apartment complexes are being built
in a conjoined manner with little or no spaces between the houses. The community of Naggo
head is a prime example of this urbanized conjoined model of building houses.
This is a community in which some of the houses are built connected to each other
and the ones that remain unattached have little space between them. Because of this lack of
space between the houses, various issues have arisen. These observations have allowed the
researchers to recognize that the acts and practices of home owners more often than not
amound to acts which may be classified in law as Nuisance, specifically Private Nuisance.
According to The Tort Law private nuisance refers to the unlawful indirect
interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of land. Nuisance is a form of tort liability
which covers a range of fact situations: fire; flood; offensive sights and blocking right of way
4
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT

5. 5
just to name a few. Private nuisance is an actionable tort only available to persons who have
rights to property such as owners and lessees.
The purpose of this research project is to also educate the reader about the remedies
available to an agreed land owner which may include damages and injunctions.
AIMS
 To investigate the elements of Private Nuisance.
 To examine whether the citizens are aware of the legal implications were they to be
found liable for the tort Private Nuisance
 To ascertain whether the citizens are aware of the remedies available to them to
alleviate the effects of the nuisance
OBJECTIVES
 To make the citizens of the Naggo Head community more compliant with the laws
governing the tort of Private Nuisance
 To reduce the occurrence of the committal of Private Nuisance in the community.
 To provide knowledge to the citizens of the Naggo Head community on the tort of
private nuisance, the implication of the liability attached in law as well as the
remedies available to an aggrieved party with the proper interest in land
AIMS/OBJECTIVES
4

6. 6
The researcher employed a quantitative data collection method as to allow clear and
precise information to be obtained.
Firstly, primary data was gathered in the form of legislation, cases and
questionnaires. The Tort Law is the legislation employed in this Internal Assessment (I.A).
The various cases were used to define and show examples of Private Nuisance: Sheppard v
Griffith [1973], Hall v Jamaica Omnibus Services Ltd [1966] and St Helens Smelting Co
v Tipping [1865].
The questionaires which consisted of nine questions were done and used. It sought to
capture the knowledge and opinion of the respondents as it relates to Private Nuisance. It
consists of seven (7) closed-ended and two (2) open-ended questions. The formatting of the
questionnaire was chosen to ensure varying responses and to allow residents the freedom to
express their views. This survey was conducted through both social media and face-to-face
interactions.
The face-to-face method was primarily targeted towards the individuals who do not
have access to social media, such as elders. Ten (10) questionnaires asking about one’s
familiarity and the legal implications associated with private nuisance were printed and given
DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLGY EMPLOYED
3

7. 7
out to individuals residing in the community of Naggo Head. The social media method
sought to capture the opinions of the youth of today. Ten (10) questionnaires were sent to 10
individuals to answer. These methods reduced the risk of the information being biased as it
captures perspectives from various ages.
The researchers also relied upon secondary methods such as the books The Oxford
Dictionary of Law, Modern Tort Law by Vivienne Harpwood, Commonwealth
Caribbean Tort Law by Gilbert Kodilinye and Essential TortLaw by Anita Stuhmcke.
As well as an article from The Gleaner Jamaica W.I. titled “Noise Nuisance” written on
Monday, March 10, 2014 by Sherry Ann McGregor.

8. 8
The elements of private nuisance in order to be found liable as stated are: physical
injury/damage, a substancial interference with claimants enjoyment of land and interference
with ones access to property. However, where the plaintiff is faultfinding about any of these
stated grievances, requirements to prove private nuisance in order to satisfy the court are :
locality, utility of the defendants conduct, claimants abnormal sensitivity, defendants malice
and duration of harm.
The case ahead is depiction of physical damage to ones property. The claimant was
the owner of a large country house which was located close to a copper smelting factory
which had been in long operation. The factory discharges noxious gases and as a result the
claimants land (trees) was damaged by the fumes and noxious gases. The claimant sued
nuisance. Even though the smelting’s discharge of the fumes was not unlawful and they were
located in an evironment where it could be expected, the claim was allowed as physical
damage to the claimants property was proven. 1
Interference to property rights or access to ones property for example, where the defendant
wrongfully obstructs the plaintiff’s right of way, right to light or right of access to his
property. In a nuisance case the plaintiff built a wall along the boundary of his premises
1 St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping,11 HL Cas 642 (House of Lords 1865).
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
3.5

9. 9
adjacent to a public sidewalk, to advertise spaces for rent. The defendants erected a bus
shelter on the sidewalk immediately in front of the appellant’s wall, despite the plaintiff’s
objections. The bus stop not only prevented the plaintiff from displaying and advertising
material, but deprived him of access to the wall for the purposes of cleaning and painting.
The Court of Appeal of Jamaica held that the plaintiff had a right of access to his wall and he
had been denied this right by reason of the bus shelter. The respondents were therefore liable
for damages in private nuisance.2
Interference with enjoyment of land. In a nuisance case, defendant operated a hotel in
New Amsterdam, Berbice.3The plaintiff lived in an adjacent house situated only about two
metres from the hotel. The plaintiff complained of noise from a juke box which was played in
the hotel at all hours, especially between midnight and 4 am every night, and from ‘dancing,
clapping and loud talking’ and the pelting of glasses and bottles. The plaintiff alleged that he
was compelled to move from his bedroom, which was near to the hotel boundary, and sleep
on the floor in another part of the house. The plaintiff protested to the defendant but his
protests were ignored. Held, the defendant’s conduct amounted to an unreasonable
interference with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of his land and constituted an actionable nuisance. The
plaintiff was entitled to damages and an injunction restraining the defendant from playing the
juke box after midnight.4
The article titled “Noise Nuisance” 5 was one which involved Private Nuisance. On
February 26, 2014, the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the
case of Coventry v Lawrence [2014]. The case concerned a claim by Lawrence to obtain an
2 Hall v Jamaica Omninus Services Ltd, 9 JLR 355 (Jamaica Courtof Appeal 1966).
3 Sheppard v Griffith (1973) High Court, Guyana,. No 320 of 1971
4 Kodilinye,G. (2000). Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law (Second Edition). London, Sydney: Cavendish
PublishingLimited.
5 McGregor, S. A. (2014).Noise Nuisance.The Gleaner Jamaica W.I.

10. 10
injunction against Coventry, the owners and operators of a stadium and race track, to prohibit
their activities on the grounds that the activities caused a noise nuisance.
The occurrence was constituted as a nuisance after much back and forth. At first, an
order to limit the noise level at the stadium was given albeit Lawrence’s house was damaged
by fire so the court postponed until after the house was rebuilt. When revisited the decision
was reversed by the Court of Appeal, stating that the stadium and track did not constitute
nuisance. Lawrence then appealed to the UK Supreme Court om which a unanimous decision
in favour of Lawrence was done as they determined that the activities did constitute nuisance.
The judgement was also postponed as the house had yet to be rebuilt. Lord Neuberger then
addressed and resolved the issues in this case. As a result, it was found that the Coventry's
activities constituted a nuisance, but, as they had not created a nuisance for 20 years, they
could not rely on a prescriptive right to carry out those activities in their defence. For that
reason, the injunction was restored, but the right was reserved for Coventry at a future
hearing to raise the issue as to whether, given the fact that planning permission had been
granted, damages would be an adequate remedy.
Figure 1. This pie chart is displaying whether or not the citizens of Naggo head had any
experience with the tort private nuisance with 55% saying YES and 45% saying NO
YES
55%
NO
45%
Have you ever had an experiencewith
the tort of Private Nuisance?
YES NO

11. 11
Figure 2. This pie chart is showing the percentage of persons who are familiar with the
elements of Private Nuisance with the results showing 30% saying NO and 70% saying YES.
Figure 3. The table below shows the elements that the citizens are aware of 4 persons are
aware of “The Plaintiff owns the land and has the right to possess it”, and 2 persons aware of
“The defendant actually acted in a way that Interferes with the plaintiff’s enjoyment and use
Of his or her property”.
Elements ofPrivate Nuisance Amount
of
persons
Percentage
The Plaintiff owns the land and has the right
to possess it
4 67%
The defendant actually acted in a way that
Interferes with the plaintiff’s enjoyment and use
Of his or her property
2 33%
YES
70%
NO
30%
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE NUISANCE?

12. 12
Figure 4. This pie chart is showing the percentage of people who are aware of the legal
sanction they can take against the offender who does Private Nuisance and the results shows
80% saying NO and 20% said YES.
80%
20%
As an individual in
communicationare you familiar
with legal sanction that can be
found liable for Private Nuisance
NO
YES

13. 13
Issue Statement: “Whether the citizens of Naggo Head are aware of the acts that amound to
the tort of the private Nuisance”.
As shown in the Presentation of Findings above the article6 was very unbiased and the
opinions of the author did not interfere with the validity of the article. The verdict given was
one the researcher agreed with as enjoyment of one’s property was being hindered by the
defendant. The cases aforementioned were all very good depictions of private nuisance and as
such the researchers also gained a more in depth understanding of the topic. However,
understanding private nuisance can be somewhat challenging, and therefore it is not
surprising that the majority of the residents were unclear about it.
According to the Tort of Law if the nuisance is ongoing for over twenty years it cannot
be filed. Remedies for private nuisance according to (Harpwood, 2009) are damage,
injunction and abatement of Private Nuisance.7
An injunction is the most common remedy
granted to claimants, however if the court deems the interference as trivial it will not be
given, however in the case Miller v Jackson [1977] damages were paid as the court deemed it
an important public interest but the claimants were also in real physical danger. Damages are
6 McGregor, S. A. (2014).Noise Nuisance. The Gleaner Jamaica W.I.
7Harpwood, V. (2009). Modern Tort Law (Seventh Edition). New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5

14. 14
compensation paid if damage to property, personal injury or substantial inconvenience can be
proven. Abatement involves the claimant removing the source of nuisance by entering the
defendant’s property and removing it. These sources are very accurate information as in
states and explain exactly how the law of Private Nuisance is and the pros and cons get from
it. The results from the secondary source say that Figure .1 shows the percentage of people in
Naggo Head who have experienced the Tort of Private Nuisance. Figure 2. shows the
percentage of people in Naggo Head who are familiar with the elements of Private Nuisance.
Figure 3. is a table showing the elements that the citizens are aware of in regards to Private
Nuisance. Figure 4. is a pie chart showing the percentage of people who are aware of the
legal sanction they can take against the offender who does Private Nuisance.
Some acts seen done by these residents are burning garbage, playing loud music for
extended periods of time, dogs barking, throwing dog faeces over a neighbour’s yard and
constantly picking the produce off a neighbour’s tree.
In relation to the charts displayed above it can be ascertained that the majority of the
people residing in Naggo Head seem to be knowledgeable of the definition of Private
Nuisance, while being unknowledgeable about its elements and the legal sanctions that can be
done. Regardless carrying out the survey proved to be beneficial as it allowed insight into
how much the residents knew.

15. 15
In conclusion a Private Nuisance is essentially a land-based tort and in order to bring
a claim in Private Nuisance, the claimant must have an interest in the land in which he asserts
his enjoyment or use has been unreasonably interfered with. In order to better understand
when there is a claim for a private nuisance, it's important to understand the elements of
Private Nuisance. While conducting this research we realized that the books and articles we
used were indeed reliable because they were accredited and had accurate information
regarding case studies and the Tort Law.
The questionnaires were also reliable because they came directly from the citizens of
Naggo Head. As shown in the presentation of findings, the majority of questionees are aware
of the elements of the Tort Private Nuisance, however were not knowledgeable on the legal
implications they can take if someone were to be found liable for Tort Private Nuisance. Both
the explanation of the elements and how it leads to Private Nuisance and the Implications one
can take toward someone performing or engaging in the Tort of Private Nuisance were
explained in the Discussion of Findings as well as some examples of cases.
The researchers recommends that residents educate themselves on private nuisance,
learn to respect their neighbour’s territory and adhere to the laws that surround Private
Nuisance.
CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATION
3.5

16. 16
Hall v Jamaica OmninusServicesLtd,9 JLR 355 (JamaicaCourtof Appeal 1966).
Harpwood,V.(2009). Modern TortLaw (Seventh Edition). New York:Routledge-Cavendish.
Kodilinye,G.(2000). CommonwealthCaribbean TortLaw (Second Edition). London,Sydney:
CavendishPublishingLimited.
Martin, E. A.(2003). A Dictionary of Law (Fifth Edition) Reissued with new covers. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
McGregor, S. A.(2014). Noise Nuisance. TheGleanerJamaica W.I.
SheppardvGriffith,320 (GuyanaHighCourt 1971).
St HelensSmeltingCovTipping,11 HL Cas 642 (House of Lords 1865).
Stuhmcke,A.(2001). Essential TortLaw(Second Edition). Sydney:CavendishPublishing(Australia).
REFERENCES
3