header-logo header-logo

Unwanted visitors: trespass & private nuisance

10 September 2021 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7947 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail
56849
Are claims in trespass & nuisance mutually exclusive? Mark Pawlowski investigates intrusions which are more than meets the eye

Trespass and private nuisance are related concepts in the law of torts. The former involves an intentional and direct interference with the claimant’s exclusive possession of land. The latter is concerned with the indirect (or consequential) interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Traditionally, therefore, the two doctrines have been regarded as functionally distinct categories in tort law. But are these two doctrines, in fact, mutually exclusive? Can an intrusion onto land caused, for example, by toxic fumes or smoke, constitute both a nuisance and a trespass? There are several English cases which clearly establish that this is a nuisance, but can it also give rise to a trespass?

From a practical point of view, it may be important to characterise the relevant claim as lying within both doctrines, not least because a cause of action in nuisance alone will fail in the absence of proof of unreasonable interference and actual

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll