Public and Private Nuisance: the Distinction

It is important to be able to distinguish between public and private nuisance. Private nuisance is a tort which protects an individual's enjoyment of their property whereas public nuisance is a broad criminal principle where an act/omission endangers life, health, morals, property or comfort of the public. A person who commits a public nuisance may incur some civil liability as well (in the same way that someone who commits an assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be sued for compensation). Though, as mentioned above, this is only possible where the Claimant suffers some special damage which goes beyond what the public at large has suffered. For example, the obstruction of a highway will affect everyone but it may particularly affect the person who owns commercial premises whose entrance is blocked.

In Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169, an injunction was granted against the Defendant in respect of its quarrying operations. It reduced vibration and dust and then appealed against the order. It was argued that the trial judge had not distinguished between public and private nuisance and the quarrying was only a private nuisance for which the Attorney General was not permitted to seek an injunction. The Court said that a nuisance will be public if enough people are affected by it to constitute a class of the public. It is not necessary to show that every member of the class has been affected but that a representative cross-section have. A public nuisance is widespread and indiscriminate. The court held that the nuisance in this case was wide enough to be a public nuisance.

Another good example is Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC [1983] 2 AC 509, where the Defendant erected ferry terminals in the Thames causing silt to come up which made it difficult for large vessels to dock at the Claimant's dock. The action in private nuisance failed because a proprietor was not entitled to object to an alteration to the depth of the water which did not threaten to cause damage to his land but merely affected a public river. The Claimant succeeded in public nuisance however as they had suffered special damage beyond the average river user (they had to pay for dredging to clear the water).