| Citation | (1865) 11 HL Cas 642 |
| Date of Judgment | 5 July, 1865 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Case Type | Private Nuisance |
| Appellant | ST HELENS SMELTING COMPANY |
| Respondent | WILLIAM TIPPING |
| Bench | Lord Chancellor (Lord Westbury) , Lord Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff, in 1860, purchased a large portion , within a short distance of which stood the works of the Defendants.
The declaration alleged that, “the Defendants erected, used, and continued to use, certain smelting works upon land near to the said dwelling house and lands of the Plaintiff, and caused large quantities of noxious gases, vapours, and other noxious matter, to issue from the said works, and diffuse themselves over the land and premises of the Plaintiff, whereby the hedges, trees, shrubs, fruit, and herbage, were greatly injured; the cattle were rendered unhealthy, and the Plaintiff was prevented from having so beneficial a use of the said land and premises as he would otherwise have enjoyed, and also the reversionary lands and premises were depreciated in values”
ISSUE
Whether the direction was correct, in relation to nuisance.
ARGUMENTS
The case was tried before Mr. Justice Mellor at Liverpool in August 1863, The defendant pleads not guilty. The Attorney-General (Sir R. Palmer), and Mr. Webster for the Appellants (Defendants in the Court below). The judge said in this act that the law does not give mercy on minor inconveniences, Everything should be viewed appropriately. Judgment was given for the plaintiff and damages. Rated 361183. The matter reached the Treasury Chamber, Lord Chief Baton Pollock gave opinion.
The learned Judge told the jury that an actionable injury was one producing sensible discomfort; there was no prescriptive right in this case; in an action for nuisance to property, arising from noxious vapours, the injury to be actionable must be such as visibly to diminish the value of the property and the comfort and enjoyment of it.
That principle was adopted in Hole v. Barlow (4 Corn. Ben., NS, 334) but when that case was heard in the Exchequer Chamber (id. 66), Hole v. Barlow was expressly dissented from by several of the judges.
Mr. Baron Martin believed to take it back twenty years. Respondent asked for fresh training and appeal was dismissed with fine.
JUDGMENT
Lord agrees to dismiss the case because Smelting and releasing the fumes was not illegal in itself, The defendant doesn’t have to suffer, he just has to suffer inconvenience.
Judgment of the court of Queen’s Bench affirmed and appeal Dismissed with costs.
Written by Lovely Singh a student of Agra College Agra , intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments