# Private nuisance: unlawful interference with land

> **Key takeaway:** Proprietary interest + substantial unreasonable interference with land use/enjoyment or damage (Hunter; Fearn). Locality and circumstances matter. Planning permission relevant not decisive (Coventry). Remedies: injunction/damages. Standing is property-based.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/private-nuisance
- **Keywords:** private nuisance, Hunter v Canary Wharf, Fearn v Tate, interference with land, injunction, Coventry v Lawrence, neighbour dispute, locality

## What is this about?

Private nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land against substantial and unreasonable interference. It is a property tort: title or a sufficient interest in land is required. Common fact patterns include noise, smells, vibrations, encroaching roots, and physical damage from neighbouring activities.

## What is the core rule?

A claimant with a proprietary interest in land may sue in private nuisance for a substantial interference with use or enjoyment (or physical damage to land) that is unreasonable having regard to the locality, duration, sensitivity of the claimant, and the defendant's conduct (including malice in limited cases). Who may sue and be sued was restated in Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery and earlier in Hunter v Canary Wharf. Remedies are primarily injunction and/or damages; planning permission is relevant context but not a defence in itself.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Does the claimant have a sufficient interest in land (owner, tenant, etc. — not a mere licensee) (Hunter)?
2. Is there an interference with use/enjoyment or physical damage to land?
3. Is the interference substantial and unreasonable in all the circumstances (locality, duration, time, utility, abnormal sensitivity)?
4. Who is the proper defendant (creator, occupier, landlord in limited cases)?
5. Remedies: prohibitory/mandatory injunction, damages (including negotiated damages in lieu in some cases), abatement

## Which authorities matter?

- **Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655** — House of Lords: who can sue in private nuisance; interference with TV reception not generally actionable as nuisance on those facts; proprietary interest required.
- **Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1** — Supreme Court restatement of private nuisance principles, including visual intrusion/overlooking as capable of amounting to nuisance in principle, assessed by ordinary use of land.
- **Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264** — Remoteness in nuisance/Rylands context: foreseeability of the relevant type of damage.
- **Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822** — Supreme Court guidance on injunctions vs damages, coming to the nuisance, and the relevance of planning permission.

## How does this apply in practice?

Public nuisance and statutory nuisance (EPA 1990) are different routes. Rylands v Fletcher is a related but distinct strict-liability-type claim for escapes of dangerous things. Tree roots and Japanese knotweed have specialised case law. Always identify the claimant's interest in land first.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Allowing a mere visitor or licensee to sue in private nuisance without Hunter standing
- Treating planning permission as an automatic defence
- Ignoring locality when assessing reasonableness of amenity interference
- Conflating private nuisance with negligence (fault is not always framed the same way)

## When would a practitioner use this?

Neighbour disputes, development impacts, industrial emissions, and injunction strategy in land-use conflicts.

## Quick reference

Proprietary interest + substantial unreasonable interference with land use/enjoyment or damage (Hunter; Fearn). Locality and circumstances matter. Planning permission relevant not decisive (Coventry). Remedies: injunction/damages. Standing is property-based.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*