Pros And Cons Of Private Nuisance

Question 2 Private nuisance would be defined as ‘an unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment, use, comfort or any interests that he or she might have over his or her land,’ as in Read v Lyons & Co Ltd [1945] KB 216. If the defendant’s action reasonably interferes with the claimant’s enjoyment of his or her land, then that interference will constitute a private nuisance and become unlawful. Thus, ‘unlawful interference’ will not indicate that the conduct or the activity of the defendant to be essentially unlawful (Norchaya Talib 2003, p. 303). The plaintiff in a private nuisance action will have to establish that there is an interference with the enjoyment of his or her land. As contrast to a claim derived from public nuisance that would not need the claimant to possess any interest over a land, a claimant must possess an interest in land to be capable of suing in private nuisance. Individuals who have interests over a land would either be landowners, tenants or licensees who have been granted licences of using the land for a specific reason. In an action for private nuisance, a claimant does not require to establish particular or special damage. The elements necessary in determining private nuisance would be: (1) substantial interference and (2) unreasonableness (Norchaya Talib 2003, p. 304).
The tort protects an individual from two forms of interference or damage: (1) interference with the enjoyment, comfort or use of his or her land; as well as (2) physical damage to the land. The claimant should establish that there has been substantial interference on whichever form of damage has materialised. What amounts to substantial interference (and thus actionable in private nuisance) varies in accordance with either of the two recognised forms of interference or damage that the plaintiff has suffered (Norchaya Talib 2003, p.