The Nature of Private Nuisance

Who can bring an action for nuisance? Historically only a person with a possessory or proprietary interest could. In Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655, two appeals were heard by the House of Lords relating to nuisance form construction in canary wharf. There were two issues: (1) whether interference with television signals by new buildings was nuisance and (2) who could bring a claim. The House of Lords held that there was no cause in respect of the television signals and that only those with exclusive possession could sue in nuisance. Exclusive possession is a right that belongs to a freeholder or a leaseholder. The decision in Hunter has not been well-regarded by everyone. The underlying approach is the approach which has characterised nuisance law historically, namely, the protection of land. Thus the fact that the television signal was disrupted did not damage the land but simply posed an inconvenience and annoyance. This can be contrasted with where the inconvenience and annoyance affects the amenity of the land. Arguably, however, in the case of a disrupted television signal there is not much difference: the lack of a signal makes the property less enjoyable just as the presence of smell or sound would. The court in this case simply took the view that the discomfort caused was not great enough and, perhaps, did not affect the land in quit a direct way as a bad smell or noise would do.