header-logo header-logo

10 September 2021 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7947 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Unwanted visitors: trespass & private nuisance

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

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll