Body & Soul1 min ago
Noise throughout the night
On the land behind where I live is a small farm, the only access to which is a private lane up the side of my house. I have recently been woken several times by the farmer placing a JCB on the pavement outside my house and clanking it in the early hours of the morning (I have no idea what he is doing with it).
I jokingly said to a friend that if he disturbed my sleep again i would report him to the council, and he said that I couldnt do that because that is his business.
Is this right?
I jokingly said to a friend that if he disturbed my sleep again i would report him to the council, and he said that I couldnt do that because that is his business.
Is this right?
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chazza. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The case of Sturges v Bridgman (1879) shows that even if you knew of the nuisance beforehand, this shall not provide the farmer a defence, as 'coming to the nuisance' is not a recognised defence.
However, that said, any claim for a nuisance based tort seems shaky. Where there is no physical damage, the courts consider the locality, as per St. Helens Smelting Co. & Tipping (1865), "What would be a nuisance in Belgravia would not be so in Bermondsey". It is likely that, having regard to the area and nature of the nuisance, that the courts would unsympathetic, should it go so far. Following the Murdoch v Glacier Metals (1998) case, if the nuisance is one that is of the area as standard (e.g.: living next to a factory and being woken by lorries...it's noisy either way), then the claim would be difficult to sustain. The Council would also need to be aware of the policy implications of denying a man his livelihood, and also that the work he does provides food and is a legal community benefit.
However, that said, any claim for a nuisance based tort seems shaky. Where there is no physical damage, the courts consider the locality, as per St. Helens Smelting Co. & Tipping (1865), "What would be a nuisance in Belgravia would not be so in Bermondsey". It is likely that, having regard to the area and nature of the nuisance, that the courts would unsympathetic, should it go so far. Following the Murdoch v Glacier Metals (1998) case, if the nuisance is one that is of the area as standard (e.g.: living next to a factory and being woken by lorries...it's noisy either way), then the claim would be difficult to sustain. The Council would also need to be aware of the policy implications of denying a man his livelihood, and also that the work he does provides food and is a legal community benefit.
1 to 4 of 4
