Defendant had a factory whose chemicals seeped into the ground entering a well that Plaintiff had bought to supply water to town residents. Although there were no health risks, an EU directive forbade water containing more than trace amounts of the chemicals to be sold, so that Plaintiff had to relocate their well.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for nuisance.
HL held that the harm was unforeseeable and therefore not compensable. The harm would only have been compensable if it had been foreseeable.
It would be unfair to say that in most tortious actions a fault requirement is required but not in nuisance.
No duty of reasonable care has to be breached for their to be an actionable nuisance.
However, the harm has to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of unreasonable use (i.e. where the use is reasonable, it doesn’t matter that it causes foreseeable harm as there will be no actionable nuisance, and vice versa).
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.
We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).
Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.