Scent of Justice - Nuisance to Land Law
In this article, I examine the legal framework in England and Wales regarding nuisance to land, focusing on a persistent problem with a landfill site in a coastal town in Lancashire. What remedies are available when unpleasant odours invade nearby properties and authorities fail to take action? Let us explore the law through this ongoing issue.
Issue?
The residents of Fleetwood have been subjected to persistent and intolerable odours emanating from a local landfill caused by carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulphide emissions. These emissions have resulted in a pervasive stench likened to rotting eggs and have caused significant distress, including serious health issues such as nosebleeds, nausea, and respiratory difficulties. Despite repeated complaints to the Environment Agency and Local Authority, no meaningful action has been taken to remedy the situation. The key issue, therefore, is whether the affected residents have a cause of action against the landfill operator in tort law.?
Rule?
Under English law, nuisance provides a legal remedy for unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land. It takes two principal forms: private nuisance and public nuisance.?
Private nuisance arises where a defendant’s actions substantially and unreasonably interfere with a claimant’s use or enjoyment of their land. The leading authority in this area is Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852, which establishes that whether an interference is unreasonable depends on the character of the locality—what is acceptable in an industrial area may not be tolerated in a residential one. A claim in private nuisance requires that the interference be substantial and unreasonable. The duration and frequency of the interference are key considerations, as held in Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683, where prolonged industrial pollution and odours were found to constitute a nuisance. Furthermore, the interference must be indirect, meaning that it extends onto the claimant’s land, whether through odours, noise, or pollutants (Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961]). As confirmed in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, a claimant must also have a proprietary interest in the affected land.?
Public nuisance, by contrast, arises where a defendant’s conduct materially affects the health, safety, or comfort of a class of people. The test, set out in Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, is whether the interference affects a sufficiently large section of the public. A claimant must also demonstrate that they have suffered special damage over and above that experienced by the general public (Castle v St Augustine’s Links [1922] 38 TLR 615).?
A frequent defence in environmental cases is that the defendant operates within the terms of an environmental permit. However, in Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312, the Court of Appeal confirmed that regulatory compliance does not provide a defence where the interference is unreasonable. Furthermore, a failure by public authorities to take enforcement action does not preclude private individuals from seeking redress through the courts.?
Application?
Applying these principles to the Fleetwood case, there is a strong argument that the emissions from the landfill constitute both private and public nuisance. The odour is not a minor or temporary inconvenience but a persistent and severe intrusion, significantly interfering with residents’ ability to enjoy their homes. Given that Fleetwood is a residential area, it is unlikely that a court would find such conditions reasonable. The continuous widespread emissions have resulted in significant distress, satisfying the test for substantial and unreasonable interference under private nuisance.?
The health effects experienced by numerous residents—nosebleeds, vomiting, and respiratory issues—further underscore the severity of the interference. These are not trivial complaints, but demonstrable harms directly linked to the landfill’s operations. The public nuisance threshold is also likely to be met, as the impact extends beyond individual households to a defined class of people within the community. The number of residents affected, and the severity of their suffering suggests that this is not a case of general inconvenience but one where the community as a whole has been disproportionately impacted.?
The landfill operator may attempt to argue that it holds the necessary environmental permits. However, as established in Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012], compliance with regulatory standards does not override liability in nuisance where the interference remains unreasonable. Likewise, the failure of the Environment Agency and Local Authority to take enforcement action does not prevent residents from pursuing legal remedies themselves.?
Conclusion?
The residents of Fleetwood have substantial legal grounds to bring claims in both private and public nuisance. The interference is severe and ongoing and has caused substantial harm in terms of loss of enjoyment of property and adverse health effects. The appropriate remedies include an injunction to prevent further emissions and damages to compensate for physical harm, loss of amenity, and potential depreciation in property value. Given the well-established legal principles, those affected have a clear right to seek redress through the courts to protect their homes and well-being.?They must do so in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute formal legal advice. The author is not liable for how this information is used. Always seek professional legal advice for specific situations.?
References:
Partnerships and Policy & Company Director
1 周Great article Thomas. It would be good to chat.