This document discusses the legal principles of nuisance. It defines private nuisance as unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land, while public nuisance is unreasonable interference affecting the public or community. For a private nuisance claim, the plaintiff must have an interest in the affected land. Defenses can include statutory authority, reasonable conduct, and necessity. The test for private nuisance examines the severity, locality, utility, and sensitivity of the interference. Public nuisance differs in affecting a class of citizens more widely. The document also discusses the rule of strict liability for escaping things which natural accumulate on one's land.

2. Nuisance entails an unreasonable
interference to the beneficial interest in
land. However, the interest in land does
not deal with the possessory interest in
land from direct physical intrusions, such
as trespass. Instead the interest in land is
based on the use and enjoyment of land.

3. Nuisance deals with the context of
balancing of the respective land interests of
the defendant and the plaintiff. There is no
absolute right to the use of land. Individuals
may not exercise nuisance to the
neighbours or the public by excessive or
unreasonable conduct.

4. VICTIMS OF NUISANCE
A victim of nuisance may seek:
1. Damages
2. An injunction or,
3. Abatement , which is self help, in
removing or solving a nuisance without
using legal recourse.

5. DEFENCES
Defences for nuisance include:
1. Statutory authority;
2. Reasonable conduct under the circumstances;
3. Contributory negligence
4. Act of a stranger; and
5. Necessity, which consists of actions to avoid imminent
peril which unavoidably causes damage to others,
such as a barricade against water which incidentally
causes flooding to neighbouring land.

6. PRIVATE NUISANCE
This entails unreasonable interference
with use, comfort, convenience an
enjoyment of land; which is sufficiently
disruptive or harmful to warrant
redress. There must be an interest in
land to initiate a lawsuit. For Example, a
relative may not sue without any interest
to claim in the land.

7. The law seeks to set a balance of the right
to use one’s property with the right for
others to enjoy the use of their land without
unreasonable inference. Therefore, legal
intervention will be exercised only for
excessive use of property causing
inconvenience beyond what one may
reasonably bear, based on standard of
comfort of time and place.

8. The test for private nuisance consists of:
1. Whether conduct is reasonable having
regard to the fact that neighbours are
present, i.e. whether interference is tolerated
by the ordinary occupier of land in the locale
based on:
A. Severity of interference, such a s
nature, duration, time of occurrence,
and effect;

9. A. Character of locale, i.e. whether the
locale is residential or commercial;
B. Utility of conduct, including whether the
defendant’s acts are of value to
community, and importance of enterprise;
C. The presence of malice by the
defendant;
D. Sensitivity of the use interfered with, and

10. 1. Whether the injury or interference was
substantial based on:
A. Material property damage
B. Substantial interference with use
and enjoyment of land; or
C. Substantial interference with other
property rights of access.

11. EXAMPLES
Overhanging branches, noise, dust, foul
odour, barking dogs, bright lights,
machinery, traffic, pollutants, and
obstruction of sunlight or view. It must be
salient that there is a balance of competing
interests of the use of the defendant’s land
and the enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land.

12. In Greenidge v Barbados Light and Power
Co. Ltd. It was held that the defendants
were NOT liable in nuisance for discharging
offensive fumes and smoke over property
that caused excessive noise which affected
the plaintiff's apartments. The decision was
based on the lack of evidence that the
ordinary reasonable resident was
inconvenienced.

13. HUNTER v CANARY WHARF [1997] upheld
that a person who has NO interest in land
may not sue for nuisance.

14. PUBLIC NUISANCE
It entails the unreasonable interference
with public interests or harmful activity
affecting land of the general public or
segment of the public. It deals with acts
which affect the general community or
class of individuals. Although it is a crime,
there must be particular damages to make
public nuisance tort.

15. Public nuisance differs from private
nuisance in that the negative consequences
of the nuisance must be so widespread or
indiscriminate that it would be
unreasonable to expect one person to
stop it alone.

16. Public nuisance entails affecting the
reasonable comfort and convenience of a
class of citizenry. However, suffering from
direct and substantial injury that is different
or greater than that which is common to all
would have recourse.

17. Examples include: a factory emitting fumes,
an obstruction in the public street or
waterway, right of passage, noxious fumes,
polluted air or polluted water.

18. Public Nuisance is a CRIME. However, it is
deemed to be a tort ONLY where it affects
an individual in a different way or to a
greater extent than the general public
(particular damage)

19. The nuisance must materially affect the
reasonable comfort and convenience of
life. An individual would have to show that
he or she sustained particular damages of a
different kind or degree for a public nuisance
suit to have standing.

20. For public nuisance to be successful in a
cause of action, one does not need to prove
that every member of the community is
injured . One need only show that a
representative cross section of the
community was affected or that there is a
large collection of private nuisances.

21. Public nuisance however, affects general,
rather than particular interests. It deals with
the cumulative effect of people living within
the sphere of influence. The distinction
between public and private nuisance is
tantamount to deciding when a group
becomes a crowd and thus, the standard
of public as opposed to private nuisance
may be subjective.

22. In Chandat v Reynolds Guyana Mines Ltd.,
it was held that farmers who alleged that
their crops were damaged by dust from a
bauxite company were unable to recover
damages under public nuisance individually,
because none of the farmers could show
particular damage.

24. In the case, it was held that the defendant
will be liable despite the lack of any
negligence or fault. A person who brings
on his land and collects and keeps anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes will be
liable for all damages which is a natural
consequence of the escape.

25. There must be an escape of an
accumulated thing from the land which
affects other land. There must also be a
special use of the land that increases the
danger to others. Therefore, the courts can
extend or restrict liability under the rule.

26. Examples include water in a reservoir, chemicals,
gas, electricity, sewage, fire and crude oil.
Defences include:
1. Consent
2. Contributory negligence
3. Acts of God (usually unsuccessful)
4. Acts of strangers