Factual and Procedural Background
On the eastern side of a major road between two towns, a strip of land approximately 300 yards long and 50 yards wide was acquired by the Ministry of Transport in 1961 for road widening purposes, but the work was never completed. The land later vested in the Defendant, a local council. From October 1991, travellers occupied this strip in caravans, and were evicted by court order in June 1994 following a Council application. The Plaintiffs, tenant farmers of an adjacent large farm, alleged that these travellers caused significant nuisance and damage to their land during their occupation. They initiated proceedings against the Council in August 1993 seeking an injunction and damages. The injunction claim became moot after eviction, leaving damages as the live issue.
The trial before the High Court Judge was set for June 1998. The Council raised a preliminary objection relying on a recent Court of Appeal decision, arguing the claim had no legal prospect of success and sought to strike out the Statement of Claim. The Judge accepted this submission and struck out the claim, entering judgment for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs appealed against this ruling. The Judge made no factual findings, deciding the legal issue on the assumed facts as pleaded. The Court of Appeal reviewed the legal principles and the pleaded facts to determine whether the claim could amount to a private nuisance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs can amount to a private nuisance as a matter of law.
- Whether the Defendant Council can be held liable in nuisance for the activities of third-party travellers occupying its land, including acts committed off the Defendant’s land but on the Plaintiffs’ land.
- Whether the Defendant’s failure to remove the travellers or prevent their activities constitutes an adoption or continuation of a nuisance.
- Whether the recent decision in Hussain v. Lancashire County Council precludes the Plaintiffs’ claim.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Plaintiffs argued that the travellers’ presence on the Defendant’s land and their repeated harmful acts on the Plaintiffs’ adjoining land constituted a continuing nuisance for which the Defendant could be liable.
- They contended there is no legal rule preventing liability for nuisance arising from activities of licensees taking place off the Defendant’s land.
- They relied on authorities such as A.G. v. Corke and Smith v. Scott to support that a landowner can be liable for nuisance caused by licensees’ acts off the land.
- The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s tolerance and provision of facilities to the travellers amounted to adopting or continuing the nuisance.
- They challenged the Judge’s interpretation of the law as too restrictive and argued the case was reasonably arguable and should proceed to trial.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Defendant Council submitted that the claim disclosed no cause of action as a matter of law and should be struck out.
- They argued that the nuisance must emanate from the Defendant’s land and that acts occurring off the Defendant’s land but on the Plaintiffs’ land cannot ground liability.
- The Council denied liability for the travellers’ independent tortious acts on the Plaintiffs’ land and denied having adopted or continued any nuisance.
- They relied heavily on the recent Hussain decision, which held no liability for a landlord for tenant acts not involving use of the tenant’s land.
- The Council contended that the Plaintiffs’ pleading did not properly allege a claim in nuisance and objected to the amendment of the Statement of Claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Hussain v. Lancashire County Council (1999) 77 P. & C.R. 89 |
Landlord not liable in nuisance for tenant acts not involving use of tenant’s land; nuisance must emanate from defendant’s land. |
Court distinguished this case from the present facts, holding that the travellers’ occupation of Defendant’s land as a base for nuisance could found liability. |
| Page Motors Ltd v. Epsom and Ewell B.C. (1981) 80 L.G.R. 337 |
Liability of occupier for nuisance caused by trespassers on their land. |
Held to be distinguishable as the nuisance acts in this case occurred off Defendant’s land. |
| A.G. v. Corke [1933] Ch. 89 |
Landowner liable in public nuisance and under Rylands v. Fletcher for acts of licensees off the land. |
Supported Plaintiffs’ argument that no legal rule prevents liability for nuisance caused by licensees off the defendant’s land. |
| Smith v. Scott [1973] 1 Ch. 314 |
Landlord liable for nuisance caused by tenants where nuisance is adopted or continued. |
Clarified liability of landowners for acts of licensees, supporting Plaintiffs’ submissions. |
| Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki [1956] 1 W.L.R. 335 |
Private nuisance can arise from activities of licensees off defendant’s land. |
Reinforced that nuisance may arise from repeated acts off defendant’s land affecting neighbour’s enjoyment. |
| Hunter v. Canary Wharf [1997] A.C. 655 |
Essence of private nuisance requires interference emanating from defendant’s land. |
Court noted occasional exceptions, but did not exclude liability for nuisance arising from licensees’ acts off land. |
| Rylands v. Fletcher |
Strict liability for escape of dangerous things from defendant’s land causing damage. |
Referenced in discussion of nuisance liability in A.G. v. Corke. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by reviewing the pleaded facts, which alleged that travellers occupied the Defendant’s land as trespassers and caused nuisance and damage to the Plaintiffs’ adjoining land. The Council had knowledge of the occupation and provided facilities, effectively tolerating the encampment. The Court emphasized the established principles of private nuisance, which generally requires interference emanating from the Defendant’s land affecting the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of their land.
Relying on authoritative texts and case law, the Court acknowledged that an occupier of land may be liable for nuisance either by creating it or by continuing it through adopting a nuisance created by others. The Court considered the recent Hussain decision, which held no liability for a landlord where tenant acts did not involve use of the tenant’s land. However, the Court distinguished Hussain on the facts, noting that here the travellers’ presence on the Defendant’s land was alleged to be the base for repeated acts of nuisance on the Plaintiffs’ land.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s submission that no nuisance could be alleged because the harmful acts occurred off the Defendant’s land. It found that liability could arise from a continuing state of affairs on the Defendant’s land—the presence of travellers who repeatedly committed harmful acts on the Plaintiffs’ land—and that the Defendant’s failure to remove or control the travellers could amount to adopting or continuing the nuisance.
The Court also noted that the nuisance was not one of vicarious liability for independent torts of third parties, but a complaint of a continuing injurious state of affairs on the Defendant’s land. The Court concluded that the claim was reasonably arguable and that striking out the claim without hearing evidence was premature.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the striking out order, and ordered that the case be remitted for trial to determine the facts and liability.
Holding and Implications
The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and set aside the order striking out the Plaintiffs’ claim for nuisance against the Defendant Council.
The direct consequence is that the Plaintiffs’ claim proceeds to trial, where evidence will be heard to determine whether the Defendant is liable for nuisance arising from the travellers’ occupation and activities. The Court clarified that, on the pleaded facts, it is at least arguable that the Defendant’s tolerance of the travellers’ presence on its land, who caused repeated harmful acts on the Plaintiffs’ land, may constitute a nuisance.
No new legal precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing principles. The case highlights the potential for occupiers of land to be liable in nuisance for continuing states of affairs involving third parties occupying their land and causing harm to neighbours, even where the harmful acts occur off the occupier’s land.