This document provides an introduction to the topic of nuisance in tort law. It defines nuisance as a branch of law that protects landowners from unreasonable interference with the use of their land. There are two types of nuisance: public nuisance, which affects the rights of the general public, and private nuisance, which disturbs a private individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The document outlines the elements that must be proven for a private nuisance claim, including that the interference was substantial and unreasonable. It examines factors like the location of the properties and whether the defendant's actions provide a public benefit. Case examples are provided to illustrate how courts have interpreted and applied the legal principles of nuisance.

1. TORT2 UK2203
KACAU GANGGU
Nuisance
Rozlinda Binti Mohamed Fadzil
1

2. SUBTOPIK
• Pengenalan
• Jenis-jenis kacau ganggu
• Definisi kacau ganggu awam
• Kategori orang yang layak membawa tindakan
• Definisi kacau ganggu persendirian
• Elemen-elemen kacau ganggu persendirian
2

3. Pengenalan kacau ganggu
• Ia adalah satu cabang undang-undang yang
memberi perlindungan kepada tuanpunya
tanah atas penggunaan tanahnya.
• Ia adalah berlandaskan kepada perbuatan
atau tinggalan defendan yang dianggap tidak
munasabah.
3

4. • Kerosakan boleh timbul dalam pelbagai
bentuk:
• Cth: Plaintif mengalami kerosakan pada harta
bendanya @gangguan terhadap
keselesaannya.
4

5. Jenis-jenis kacau ganggu
• 1)kacau ganggu awam
• 2)kacau ganggu persendirian
5

6. KACAU GANGGU AWAM
• Ia timbul apabila terdapat gangguan ke atas
hak-hak awam. Cth: Halangan ke atas
penggunaan lebuhraya, meninggalkan kayu di
atas jalanraya, pencemaran udara,
pencemaran air, menjual makanan tercemar
• Merupakan kesalahan jenayah dan juga tort.
6

7. kes
• Attorney General v PYA Quarries (1957) 2 QB
169
– Mahkamah menyatakan bahawa kacauganggu awam
timbul apabila sesuatu tindakan atau aktiviti defendan
mengganggu keselesaan dan kemudahan yang
munasabah segolongan masyarakat dalam sesebuah
komuniti tertentu.
– Adalah tidak perlu untuk penghakiman itu
membuktikan bahawa setiap ahli dalam komuniti
tersebut telah mendapat kesan buruk. Adalah
memadai untuk menunjukkan bahawa terdapat satu
kelas masyarakat dari kumpulan komuniti itu yang
telah menerima/mendapat akibatnya.
7

8. • Dalam kes PYA ini, kerja2 kuari dijalankan
menyebabkan masyarakat tempatan
mendapat kesan habuk dan gegaran dari
letupan yang dijalankan.
8

9. kes
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Boey
Siew Than (1978) 2 MLJ 156
Hakim Gunn Chit Tuan:
“…it is clear that a nuisance, if within its sphere,
which is the neighbourhood, it materially
affects, the reasonable comfort and convenience
of a class of the subjects of the state.”
9

10. sambungan
• Maka ia adalah satu kacau ganggu awam
sekiranya perbuatan/tindakan itu secara
materialnya mengganggu “comfort &
convenience” @ keselesaan & kemudahan
sesuatu kelas masyarakat dalam kawasan
tersebut.
10

11. • Persoalan samada jumlah individu yang
affected itu terjumlah kepada “a class” adalah
persoalan fakta.
11

12. kes
Lihat kes:
Zainap bt Abdul Majid & ors v Gan Eng Hwa & ors
(1995) 1 MLJ 801
12

13. Kategori Pihak Yang Layak Membawa
Tuntutan
• 1) Peguam Negara- seksyen 8(1) Government
Proceedings Act 1956.
• Walaupun kerosakan khas tidak dialami oleh
plaintif, tindakan khas masih boleh diambil dalam
kacauganggu awam. Apa yang perlu adalah PN
yang mengambil tindakan atau kebenaran
bertulis dari PN yang diperolehi oleh dua orang @
lebih, untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap
defendan walaupun tiada kerosakan khas.
13

14. • Tindakan adalah diambil bagi mendapatkan
perintah deklarasi dan injunksi atau apa2
relief lain.
14

15. kes
• Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Boey Siew
Than (1978) 2 MLJ 156
– Dalam kes ini, pihak berkuasa tempatan boleh
mengambil tindakan dalam tort kacau ganggu
awam untuk mendapatkan injuksi supaya
defendan tidak boleh menggunakan tanahnya
untuk dijadikan restoran tanpa lesen.
15

16. sambungan
• Kacau ganggu awam juga adalah kesalahan
jenayah Seksyen 268 Kanun Kesiksaan
– “A person who is guilty of Public Nuisance, who
does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission,
which causes any common injury, danger or
annoyance to the public, or to the people in
general who dwell or occupy property in the
vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury,
obstruction, danger, or annoyance to persons who
may have occasion to use any public right.”
16

17. Sambungan
2)Orang persendirian-
Jika orang itu dapat membuktikan bahawa beliau
mendapat kerosakan @ kerosakan khas tertentu(special
damage) melebihi dari apa yang dialami oleh orang lain.
Cth: Kilang A menjalankan aktiviti membuat karpet
berdekatan kawasan perumahan. Aktiviti tersebut
menyebabkan pengeluaran debu setiap hari dan ini
mendatangkan ketidakselesaan kepada penduduk sekitar.
Maimun telah mengalami penyakit kulit yang sangat teruk
akibat pencemaran tersebut. Tiada penduduk lain yang
mengalami penyakit kulit seperti itu.
17

18. • Kerosakan khas/special damage bermaksud:
• “Damage over and above that suffered by the
class of persons affected”
• Damage must be direct and substantial.
18

19. kes
– Pacific Engineering v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill(1966) 2
MLJ 142
– Plaintif menjalankan perniagaan menjual
peralatan dan jentera pembinaan. Sekam padi dari
kilang defendan telah berterbangan ke kilang
plaintif lalu menyebabkan pekerja2 plaintif
terpaksa menutup mulut dan hidung mereka.
Apabila terdapat angin, sekam padi yg
berterbangan itu juga menyebabkan pintu premis
terpaksa ditutup. Peralatan dan jentera plaintif
berhabuk dan minyak pelincir menjadi kotor.
19

20. Sambungan kes
Plaintif berjaya membuktikan beliau mengalami
kerosakan khas yang mana beliau mengalami
ketidakselesaan peribadi dan kerosakan harta
benda.
20

21. Kacau ganggu persendirian

22. Definisi
 Gangguan yang tidak munasabah & substantial yg
dilakukan secara tidak sah ke atas hak plaintif utk
menikmati tanahnya.

23. Samb.
 Kacau ganggu melindungi plaintif daripada gangguan:
 1. Gangguan terhadap penggunaan/keselesaan plaintif
dlm menikmati tanahnya secara aman
 2.Gangguan terhadap kerosakan fizikal tanahnya.

24. Jenis-jenis kerosakan yg diakibatkan oleh
kacauganggu
 1. Personal discomfort(ketidakselesaan peribadi)
 Cth: i) Defendan memasang radio terlalu kuat setiap
malam sehingga tidur plaintif terganngu setiap malam
ii) Habuk yg dikeluarkan oleh kilang kuari defendan
menyebabkan plaintif mendapat batuk kering

25. Samb.
 2. Kerosakan fizikal terhadap tanah.
 Cth. i)dahan pokok mempelam defendan masuk ke
dalam tanah plaintif dan menyebabkan pagar plaintif
rosak.
 ii)akar pokok yg terdapat di tanah defendan
merebak ke tanah plaintif lalu menyebabkan tandas
rumah plaintif tersumbat dan rosak.

26. Samb.
 Undang-undang kacau ganggu juga cuba mencari
keseimbangan antara hak defendan untuk
menggunakan tanahnya sebagaimana yg dia suka
dengan hak plaintif utk menikmati penggunaan
tanahnya tanpa gangguan.

27. Perbezaan di antara kacau ganggu awam dan
kacau ganggu persendirian
 MPPP v BOEY SIEW THAN (1978) 2 MLJ 156
“…a nuisance is a public nuisance, if within its sphere,
which is the neighbourhood, it materially affects the
reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the
subjects of the state. A private nuisance… is one which
disturbs the interest of some private individual in the
use and enjoyment of his property by interference with
the usual enjoyment of property by causing or
permitting the escape of deleterious substances or
things such as smoke, odours or noise.”

28. Bukti kerosakan- Adakah diperlukan?
 Kacau ganggu bukan satu tuntutan bersifat actionable
per se- Ertinya kerosakan perlu dibuktikan.
 Bagi gangguan yg mengakibatkan personal discomfort
terdapat kes yg memutuskan kerosakan tidak perlu
dibuktikan

29. WOON TAN KAN (DECEASED) &7 ORS v ASIAN RARE RED
EARTH SDN. BHD. (1992) 4 CLJ 299
 Peh Swee Chin J: …There must be substantial
interference with the enjoyment of land…In a nuisance
of the kind involved in the present case, proof of
actual damage, physical or financialor personal injury
is not required, the law presumes damage here…injury
to health need not be proved…once annoyance and
discomfort is established.

30. ELEMEN-ELEMEN KACAU GANGGU
PERSENDIRIAN
 1) Gangguan yg substantial
 - sama ada sesuatu gangguan itu bersifat substantial/
tidak adalah satu persoalan fakta

31. Hotel Continental Sdn. Bhd. V Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion
(2002) 3 AMR 3405
 Mahkamah memutuskan terdapat gangguan
substantial apabila kerja-kerja piling yg dijalankan di
tanah defendan telah menyebabkan retakan di
bangunan plaintif.

32. Samb.
 2. Tidak munasabah.
 Plaintif perlu membuktikan yg gangguan itu tidak
munasabah
 Samada sesuatu gangguan itu munasabah / tidak
adalah satu persoalan fakta
 Dlm menentukan samada gangguan tersebut
munasabah/ tidak, beberapa faktor akan diambil kira:

33. Samb.
 i)lokasi premis plaintif dan premis defendan adalah
relevan dlm mempertimbangkan samada kacau
ganggu itu adalah munasabah/ tidak.
 St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v Tipping (1865)11 HL CAS 642
 Estet getah plaintif terletak di kawasan perindustrian.
Dlm kes ini asap yg dibebaskan dari kilang defendan
telah merosakkan pokok getah plaintif.

34. Samb.
 Diputuskan bhw faktor lokasi tidak relevan apabila
gangguan melibatkan kerosakan fizikal terhadap tanah.
Ini kerana tuanpunya tanah perlu dilindungi dari
kerosakan fizikal, tidak kira di mana dia berada. Faktor
lokasi menjadi relevan apabila gangguan menyebabkan
personal discomfort(cth gangguan bau, bunyi).

35. Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Calagan(1940) AC
880
 Mahkamah menyatakan bahawa:
 “A balance has to be maintained between the right
of the occupier to do what he likes with his own,
and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered
with. It is impossible to give any precise or
universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a
useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according
to the ordinary usage of mankind living in…a
particular area.”

36. Sturges v Brigman (1879) 11 CH D 852
 Per Thesiger LJ:
 “What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would
not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”

37. Sykt Perniagaan Selangor Sdn. Bhd. V Fahro Razi, Mohdi
& ors(1981) 2 MLJ 16
 “People who lived in the urban area must be prepared
to accept noise, but no one however, has the right to
create excessive noise which is unreasonable and is a
nuisance.”

38. Samb.
 ii) Faedah kepada orang awam/ramai
 Jika perbuatan defendan memberi faedah kpd org
ramai, perbuatan tersebut tidak terjumlah kepada
tidak munasabah.

39. Miller v Jackson (1977) QB 966
 Sungguhpun lantunan bola kriket yg kerap kali masuk
ke tanah plaintif merupakan kacau ganggu tetapi
mahkamah Rayuan enggan memberikan tegahan yang
dipohon oleh plaintif kerana aktiviti permainan bola
kriket memberi faedah kepada masyarakat. Faedah yg
diberikan oleh kelab bola kriket itu mengatasi
kepentingan plaintif.

40. Perbadanan Pengurusan Taman Bukti Jambul v Kerajaan
M’sia (2001) 1 AMR 228
 Pengubahsuaian bangunan utk dijadikan sebuah
klinik tidak terjumlah kpd perbuatan yg tidak
munasabah
 - maka tidak terdapat kacau ganggu.

41. Samb.
 iii) Jangka masa gangguan.
 -gangguan hendaklah berterusan
 -sungguhpun begitu terdapat kes yg melibatkan
gangguan yg berlaku sekali saja.

42. Spicer v Smee (1946) 1 All ER 480
 Rumah plaintif yg terletak bersebelahan dgn rumah
defendan telah terbakar akibat sistem pendawaian
defendan yg tidak sempurna.
 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa defendan
bertanggungan bagi kacau ganggu.

43. British Celanese Ltd. V Hunt (Capacitors)
Ltd. (1969) 2 All ER 1252
 Lawson, J:
“Most nuisance do arise from a long continued
condition and many isolated happenings do not
constitute a nuisance. It is however, clear from the
authorities that an isolated happening by itself can
create an actionable nuisance.”

44. Samb.
 Sensitiviti yg luar biasa.
-Jika plaintif/ hartanya mempunyai sensitiviti yg luar
biasa, mahkamah tidak membenarkan tindakan kacau
ganggu di bawa terhadap defendan.

45. Robinson v Kilbert (1889) 41 CH D 88
 Defendan mengusahakan perniagaan membuat
kotak2 kertas. Proses pembuatan kotak2 tersebut
melibatkan penggunaan udara panas. Plaintif yg
tinggal di tingkat atas premis defendan mengusahakan
perniagaan menjual kertas2 khas. Kertas2 khas plaintif
dijual mengikut sukatan beratnya. Udara panas dari
premis defendan mengakibatkan kehilangan
lembapan dlm kertas2 plaintif.

46. Samb.
 Mahkamah memutuskan:
 Tuntutan plaintif adalah ditolak. Darjah kepanasan di
premis plainti tidak mendatangkan kesukaran kpd
pekerja2 plaintif dan ia tidak akan memberi kesan ke
atas kertas2 biasa.
 Kertas2 khas plaintif didapati mempunyai sensitiviti
luar biasa.

47. Samb.
 Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board(1965) 1
All ER 264.

48. Samb.
 iv)Niat jahat di pihak defendan
 Sekiranya niat jahat dibuktikan di sebalik tindakan
defendan, gangguan oleh defendan itu akan dikira
sebagai satu kacau ganggu walaupun gangguan itu
bersifat munasabah.

49. Christie v Davey (1893) 1 CH D 316
 Plaintif adalah guru muzik yg menjalankan kelas
muzik di rumahnya. Defendan adalah jiran plaintif,
tidak menyukai bunyi-bunyi peralatan muzikal dari
rumah plaintif ketika kelas dijalankan. Defendan
telah mengambil tindakan menjerit-jerit dan
membuat bising dgn mengetuk dinding antara rumah
mereka dengan pots and pans.

50. Samb.
 Mahkamah:
 Terdapat niat jahat(malice) di sebalik tindakan
defendan itu. Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan
injuksi yg dipohon plaintif supaya defendan
menghentikan perbuatannya.

51. Samb.
 Bandingkan dengan kes:
 Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmet (1936) 2 KB
468

52. KACAU GANGGU 2
By
Rozlinda Mohamed Fadzil
FUU, UKM

53. SUBTOPIK
• Siapakah yang layak membawa tuntutan
• Siapakah yang boleh dituntut
• Dalihan/pembelaan

54. Siapakah yg layak membawa
tuntutan/who can sue under Private
Nuisance
• Oleh kerana tujuan undang-undang kacau
ganggu ialah untuk melindungi
kepentingan seseorang di atas tanahnya,
sama ada dalam menggunakan/menikmati
tanahnya, orang yg boleh membawa
tuntutan ialah mereka yg mempunyai
kepentingan dari segi
pemilikan/kepentingan dlm bentuk lain
seperti posesi(possession)

55. • only a person who has some proprietary or other interest
in land can maintain an action. This includes a
landowner, an occupier whether as tenant, lessee or a
person who is in actual possession.
• Foster v Warblington UDC (1906) 1 kb 648 , CA] . A
reversioner (a landowner who is not in occupation a the
time the interference takes place but who is expected to
resume occupation at a future date) may also sue if he
can prove that there is a likelihood of permanent damage
or interference to his land and in such a situation his
interest co-exists with the right of the occupier. The
permanent damage or interference is one which
continues indefinitely unless something is done to
remove it.

56. • If the damage or interference is of a
temporary nature such as the emission of
noise or smoke, the reversioner is not
entitled to claim. This is regardless of the
likelihood of such interference recurring in
the future, or that the interference has
caused tenants to leave the premises or
that it had reduced the letting value of
premises-Simpson v Savage (1856)

57. • this rule that the person who sues must have
either a proprietary or possessory interest in the
land was illustrated in Malone V laskey, [(1907)
2 KB 141, CA] where the wife of an occupier
suffered personal injuries caused by a bracket
falling off the wall onto her head. The
mishapwas due to vibrations coming from the
defendants adjoining premises. The court
denied her remedy as she did not have any
interest in the land.

58. • In 1993, the court of appeal in England in a majority judgment
extended the category of persons entitled to sue in Khorasanjian v
Bush [1993]
• Here the defendant could not accept the plaintiff’s rejection of his
advances towards her and began to harass her. He pestered her
with telephone calls.
• Held-verbal threats which are calculated to cause harm, and actually
do cause harm, are actionable; the plaintiff in this case could suffer
illness throught the cumulative effect of continued and unrestrained
further harassment. The court further held that the telephone
harassment is an actionable interference with her ordinary and
reasonable use and enjoyment of property where she is lawfully
present, and the harassment may be restrained quia timet and
without further proof of damage.

59. • The rule that only those who have an interest in land may sue has
been reasserted and confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)
• A reversioner may sue in respect of a nuisance of sufficiently
permanent character which may damage his reversion. The action is
usually brought by a person in actual possession, although he
cannot prove title to the land. A mere license however, has no right
to sue. So members of the occupier’s family be it spouse, children
and parents; or guests lodgers or even workers, would not be
entitled to sue.
• Hence it is very important in this area to list in order of importance
the list of leading/prominent cases in this area according to
precedence

60. Malone v Lanskey(1907) 2 KB 141
• Plaintif perlu mempunyai kepentingan di
atas tanah untuk membawa tuntutan
kacau ganggu.
• Dalam kes ini, mahkamah menafikan
tuntutan isteri penyewa apabila mendapat
kecederaan disebabkan oleh runtuhan
water cisterndi akibat gegaran yg datang
dari tanah defendan

61. Khorasandjian v Bush(1993) 32 All
ER 669
• Kes ini tidak bersetuju dengan kes Malone v Lanskey.
• Dlm kes ini plaintif membawa tuntutan terhadap
defendan kerana gangguan panggilan telefon yg
dilakukan defendan.
• Plaintif hanya merupakan licensee di atas tanah milik
ibunya. Mahkamah memberikan tegahan interim kpd
plaintif utk menghalang defendan dari mengganggu
plaintif. Defendan membuat rayuan dan menghujahkan
bahawa plaintif tidak boleh mendapat perintah tegahan
keranan plaintif tidak mempunyai kepentingan atas
tanah tersebut.

62. Samb.
• RoseLJ & Dillon LJ:
To my mind, it is ridiculous if in this present age the law is
that the making of deliberately harassing and pestering
telephone calls to a person is only actionable in the civil
courts if the recipient of the calls happens to have the
freehold or a leasehold proprietary interest in the
premises in which he or she has received the calls…
The court has at times to consider earlier decisions in
the light of changed social conditions… If the wife of the
owner is entitled to sue in respect of harassing telephone
calls, then I do not see why that should not also apply to
a child living at home with her parents.

63. Dissenting judgment
• Gibson LJ: I know of no authority which
would allow a person with no interest in
land or right to occupy land to sue in
private nuisance. Given that the purpose
of an action in nuisance is to protect the
right to use and enjoyment of land, it
seems to me to be wrong in principle if a
mere licensee or someone without such
right could sue in private nuisance.

64. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd.
(1997) 2 All ER 426
• Dalam kes ini HOL telah overruled kes
Khoransandijan v Bush.
• Di Malaysia- Menurut s 3(1) Akta Undang-
undang Sivil 1956 prinsip kes Maloney v
Lanskey terpakai.

65. Samb.
Maka, berdasarkan pad kepentingan yg
dilindungi dan kes Maloney v Lanskey,
mereka yg boleh membawa tuntutan
kacau ganggu adalah:
1)-tuanpunya tanah
2)-penghuni (sama ada sebagai penyewa,
lessee @ orang yg mempunyai
possession in fact ke atas tanah terbabit.)

66. Siapakah yg boleh dituntut?
• 1) Orang yg mewujudkan kacau ganggu
(creator of nuisance)-
• Orang yg mewujudkan kacau ganggu tidak
semestinya:
• i)penghuni
• ii)tuan punya tanah atau
• iii)mempunyai kepentingan di atas tanah
tersebut

67. MARCIC v THAMES WATER UTILITIES
LTD (2002) 2 All ER 55
• Syarikat defendan yg bertanggungjawab
dlm pembuangan sampah di mana plaintif
tinggal diputuskan bertanggungjawab
terhadap kerosakan rumah plaintif yg
diakibatkan oleh kacau ganggu defendan

68. • It was responsible for the removal of sewage in the area
where the claimant lived. Over time, the sewers became
inadequate for removing surface and foul water which
had on occasion been discharged into claimant's front
and back garden. His house was damaged. The court
held that as owners and those in control of the sewers,
the defendant company had a duty to do whatever was
reasonable for those circumstances to prevent such
hazards from damaging property belonging to others.
The court found that the company had or should have
had knowledge of the hazard and it was within their
capabilities to abate the nuisance.

69. samb
• 2)Occupier/Penghuni-penghuni
bertanggungan terhadap kacau ganggu yg
dilakukannya dan kacau ganggu yg
dilakukan oleh:
– a. pekerja –berdasarkan pada prinsip tanggungan
beralih (Spicer V Smee [1946] 1 All ER 489)
– b. kontraktor bebas- berdasarkan pada prinsip dalam
kes Bower v Peate the defendant was found liable
when his independent contractor undermind the
support for the plaintiff’s adjoining house. Read also
Matania v The National Provincial Bank LTD

70. Bower v Peate(1876) 1 QBD
321
• The principle that arose in this case
• Cockburn CJ: A man orders work to be executed
from which in the natural course of things
injurious consequences to his neighbour must
be expected to arise unless means are adopted
by which such consequences may be prevented,
is bound to see to the doing of that which will
prevent the mischief and cannot relieve himself
of his responsibility by employing someone else-

71. Samb.
-whether it be the contractor employed to
do the work from which the danger arises,
or some other independent person –to do
what is necessary to prevent the act he
ordered to be done from becoming
wrongful.

72. Matania v The National Provincial Bank
LTD.(1936) 2 All ER 633
• Defendan diputuskan bertanggungan
terhadap kacau ganggu yg disebabkan
oleh kontraktor bebas.
• It is important that you read & understand
the facts of this case.

73. samb
• C. Penceroboh-
Jika penghuni mengetahui / sepatutnya
mengetahui mengenai kacau ganggu yg
diwujudkan oleh penceroboh tetapi tidak
mengambil langkah yg munasabah utk
menghapuskan kacau ganggu itu. Jika penghuni
tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang
kewujudan kacau ganggu yg diwujudkan oleh
penceroboh, penghuni tidak akan dikenakan
tanggungan.

74. Sedleigh Dendield v O’Callaghan(1940) 3 All ER
349
• Defendan bertanggungan bagi kacau
ganggu yg diwujudkan oleh penceroboh
kerana mempunyai pengetahuan
mengenai kacau ganggu tersebut.
• Lord Wright: The liability for a nuisance is
not, at least in modern law, a strict or
absolute liability…it has, I think, been
rightly established in the Court of Appeal
that an occupier is not prima facie

75. Samb.
responsible for a nuisance created without
his knowledge or consent. If he is to be
liable, further condition is necessary,
namely that he had knowledge, or means
of knowledge, that he knew or should have
known of the nuisance in time to correct it
and obviate its mischievous effects.

76. • where the defendant owned a piece of land on which there was a
big ditch. A trespasser subsequently placed a pipe in the ditch
without knowledge of the defendant, but the person who was
responsible for cleaning the ditch knew about the piping of the ditch.
No proper precautions were taken to ensure that the pipe would not
be clogged and the plaintiff’s land, which was adjacent to the
defendant’s land was flooded. The heavy rain in fact occurred three
years after the pipes were placed in the drain. The court found the
defendant liable as his employee who can cleaned the ditch should
have known that the condition of the pipes gave rise to a risk of
flooding and this knowledge was imputed to the defendants.
• See also:Parimala a/p Muthussany v Projek Lebuhraya Utara-
Selatan(1997) Where the defendant highway authority was found
not liable in nuisance as the defendant could not be said to have
known or be presumed to know that at the relevant time there was a
breach of the fence or that there was a cow strolling on the highway

77. Samb.
d. Licensee- prinsipnya adalah sama dgn
liabliti bagi kacau ganggu yg diwujudkan
oleh penceroboh.
LIPPIATT v SOUTH GLOUCESTESHIRE
COUNCIL (1994) 4 ALL ER 149
-Penghuni bertanggungan bg kacau ganggu
yg diwujudkan oleh licensee kerana
mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai
kewujudannya.

78. Samb.
• E. Natural causes- prinsip yg sama
terpakai dgn kacau ganggu yg disebabkan
oleh penceroboh / licensee
GOLDMAN V HARGRAVE(1967) 1 AC
645
Defendan bertanggungan kerana
kerosakn yg dialami plaintif boleh
dipralihat sebagai akibat drp tiada
tindakan yg diambil oleh defendan.

79. • A tree on the defendants land was struck by lightning
and started to burn. The defendant requested a third
party to fell burning tree and saw it into it sections but he
did not take any reasonable steps to douse the burning
tree. Due to the strong wind and a rise of temperature,
the fire spread to the plaintiff’s property causing the
damage. The courts held the damages was foreseeable
as a result of the defendants’ inaction. Thus an occupier
must take reasonable steps to remedy a potentially
hazardous state of affairs, including those that arise
naturally.

80. • The principle in Goldman was adopted
Leakey v National Trust([1980]
• Holbeack Hall Hotel v Scarborough
Borough Council[2000]
• Wu SiewYing v Gunung Tunggal Quarry &
Construction Sdn Bhd([1999] -please read
all cases

81. NOBLE V HARRISON (1926) 2
KB 332
• Rowlatt J:… a person is liable for a
nuisance constituted by the state of his
property : (1) if he cause it; (2) if by the
neglect of some duty he allowed it to arise;
(3) if, when it has arisen without his own
act or default, he omits to remedy it within
a reasonable time after he did or ought to
have become aware of it.

82. Samb.
• f. Kacau ganggu yg disebabkan oleh
penghuni sebelumnya- ia juga bergantung
kpd pengetahuan yg dimilki oleh penghuni.
– ST.ANNE’S WELL BREWERY CO. V
ROBERTS (1920) 140 LT 1
– Scrutton LJ: It appears to me that the cardinal
thing which would have to be prove to
establish any what would any liablity against
anybody would be knowledge of the defect
which ultimately resulted in the fall or failure

83. • To use reasonable care to ascertain what
he should have ascertained.

84. • If the interference had existed before the defendant occupier
acquired the property, he will be liable if the plaintiff can prove that
he knows or ought to know of its existence but of otherwise.
• St Anne’s Well Brewery co v Roberto (1928) followed in Wilkins v
Leighton (1932) So if an occupier has not created the interference
and does not know about it, he will not be held liable. If he has
created it he will be liable even after he has left the premises.

85. Samb. Orang yang boleh
dituntut
• 3) Tuan punya tanah
• -Tuan tanah yg telah menyerahkan posesi dan kawalan
kpd orang lain tidak boleh dikenakan tanggungan bagi
kacau ganggu yg wujud di premis tersebut.
• -tiga situasi yg mana tuan punya tanah akan dikenakan
tanggungan:
• a. jika dia membenarkan kacau ganggu itu (If he has
authorized the nuisance). Tuan tanah dianggap
membenarkan kacau ganggu jika kacau ganggu yg
berlaku itu adalah sesuatu yg biasa @ semulajadi akibat
drp penyewaan tanahnya. Where the landlord authorizes
the nuisance either expressly or impliedly ‘he will be held
liable-Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999]

86. • The test is whether the nuisance is
something that is normal and natural and
normal as a result of the tenancy or lease.
For instance, in Tetley v Chitty (1986] 1 All
ER 663) a local authority was held liable
when nuisance arose from go-carting
activities on land was let by it. In these
circumstances, the tenant may also be
found liable.

87. • -jika penyewa mewujudkan kacau ganggu
melalui perlanggaran perjanjian dgn tuan
punya, tuan punya tidak akan
bertanggungan.
– Smith v Scott(1973) 1 CH 314
– Page Motors Ltd. V Epsom & Ewell Borough
Council(1982) LGR 337

88. – TETLEY V CHITTY (1986) 1 ALL ER 663
– The Medway Borough Council dikenakan
tanggungan bagi kebisingan akibat aktiviti go-
kart yg diwujudkan oleh penyewa kerana
kebisingan itu merupakan sesuatu yg biasa @
semulajadi yg disebabkan aktiviti go-kart di
atas premis itu dan tuan punya tanah telah
memberikan kebenaran sama ada secara
nyata/tersirat ke atas kacau ganggu yg
berlaku.

89. Samb-situasi yg mana tuan punya
tanah akan dikenakan tanggungan:
• b. Jika tuan punya tanah
mengetahui/sepatutnya mengetahui
tentang kewujudan kacau ganggu
sebelum penyewaan.
– Brew Brothers Ltd. V Snax (Ross) Ltd. (1970)
1 QB 612

90. Samb-situasi yg mana tuan punya
tanah akan dikenakan tanggungan:
• c. Jika tuan tanah telah bersetuju utk membaiki/
mepunyai hak utk masuk ke premis bagi
melakukan pembaikan
• -Lihat kpd degree of control yg ada pd
tuanpunya tanah.
• Jika tuan tanah tidak mempunyai hak utk masuk
ke premis yg telah disewakan bagi memeriksa
keadaan premis, maka dia tidak akan
bertanggungan bagi kacau ganggu yg timbul.

91. • Namun jika tuan tanah mempunyai hak utk
masuk ke premis bagi tujuan
menyelenggara/membaiki, dia boleh
dikenakan tanggungan walaupun dia tidak
mengetahui tentang kerosakan@ kacau
ganggu yg telah timbul.

92. • Dlm keadaan di mana tuan tanah telah
mengambil tanggungjawab utk membaiki
premis@masih mempunyai hak utk
memasukki premis bagi tujuan membaiki,
penyewa juga akan dikenakan
tanggungan sebagai penghuni .

93. DALIHAN/PEMBELAAN
• 1. Prescription.
• -dalihan ini dipakai di England yg mana
jika kacau ganggu telah berlaku selama 20
thn dan plaintif tidak mengambil langkah
membawa tuntutan terhadap defendan.

94. Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11
CH D 852
• Plaintif dan defendan adalah jiran. Defendan merupakan
pengeluar biskut dan operasi mesin-mesinnya telah
mengeluarkan bunyi bising & gegaran ke premis plaintif.
Keadaan ini telah berlarutan selama 20 tahun. Plaintif
adalah seorang doktor. Beliau kemudiannya telah
membina bilik rawatan dibelakang rumahnya. Plaintif
membawa tuntutan kacau ganggu keran bunyi bising
dan gegaran itu mengganggu plaintif semasa memberi
rawatan.

95. • Mahkamah: Dalihan preskripsi tidak
terpakai kerana sebelum tindakan diambil
gangguan oleh defendan itu tidaklah
terjumlah kpd tort kacau ganggu kerana ia
tidak memberi kesan ke atas kegunaan
dan kenikmatan plaintif ke atas tanahnya.

96. • 2. Kuasa statutori
• - jika defendan melakukan sesuatu aktiviti berdasarkan
kuasa yg diberikan oleh statut, defendan tidak akan
dikenakan tanggungan walaupun aktiviti itu
menyebabkan kacau ganggu.
• -Tetapi defendan mesti membuktikan bahawa gangguan
itu tidak dapat dielakkan.
• -Ujian: Adakah kacau ganggu itu dapat dielakkan jika
langkah yg munasabah telah diambil olehnya?

97. Goh Chat Ngee & 3 ors v Toh Yan
& anor(1991) 2 CLJ 1163
• Defendan perlu membuktikan bahawa
kacau ganggu itu tidak dapat dielakkan
walaupun langkah berhati-hati yg
munasabah telah diambil.

98. • S. 64 Local Government Act 1976:
• Pihak yg terjejas dengan aktiviti yg
dijalankan ke atas tempat awam akan
diberi pampasan.