SQE1 private nuisance: what you must know and how it is tested

SQE1 private nuisance questions test who can sue, what interference counts and whether it is unreasonable. It is a tort against the use and enjoyment of land, not against the person. Read it with the wider Tort guide.

The rules to apply

Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use and enjoyment of land, or of rights over it. The claimant needs an interest in the land, such as ownership or a tenancy (Hunter v Canary Wharf), and a family member who merely lives there cannot sue. The defendant may be the creator of the nuisance, the occupier, or a landlord who authorised it. It covers physical damage to land, such as tree roots, and interference with enjoyment, such as noise, smell or smoke. It does not cover personal injury claims, and a view or television signal is not protected.

Whether the interference is unreasonable depends on the locality (Sturges v Bridgman), the duration and frequency of the interference, the sensitivity of the claimant's use (Robinson v Kilvert) and the defendant's malice (Christie v Davey). Utility to the public is not itself a defence. Planning permission can alter the character of a locality, but it does not by itself authorise a nuisance (Coventry v Lawrence). Damages need the kind of damage to have been reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather).

Defences are statutory authority, consent and prescription (20 years of nuisance as of right). Coming to the nuisance is no defence. Remedies are an injunction, damages, and abatement. Damages may be awarded instead of an injunction, but an injunction is the usual remedy. Under Rylands v Fletcher, a person who brings onto their land and keeps there a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, in a non natural use of land, is liable for foreseeable damage if it escapes. It is a form of nuisance, so the claimant needs an interest in land and personal injury is excluded (Transco v Stockport).

Traps examiners use

• Letting someone sue without an interest in the land.
• Allowing a personal injury claim in nuisance.
• Treating abnormal sensitivity as unreasonable interference by the defendant.
• Treating coming to the nuisance as a defence.
• Forgetting that Rylands v Fletcher needs a thing that escapes.
• Assuming planning permission automatically defeats a claim.

Worked question 1

Jade starts growing delicate orchids that need a very steady temperature. Her neighbour's long established bakery produces a normal level of heat and she complains that her orchids are damaged. Ordinary gardening is unaffected. Which statement is correct?

• A. Jade succeeds, because the bakery caused real damage.
• B. Jade fails, because her use is abnormally sensitive and the bakery's activity would not interfere with an ordinary use.
• C. Jade succeeds, because the bakery was malicious.
• D. Jade fails, because nuisance never covers heat.
• E. Jade succeeds, because the bakery was there first.

Answer: B. A claimant cannot rely on an abnormally sensitive use (Robinson v Kilvert). The question is whether the interference would affect an ordinary use of the land. C has no malice facts. D is wrong, since heat can be a nuisance. E is not relevant, as the bakery's priority does not help Jade.

Worked question 2

Kofi, aged 16, lives with his parents in a house owned by his father. A nightclub next door makes unreasonable noise every night. Kofi wants to sue the nightclub in private nuisance. Which statement is correct?

• A. He can sue, because he suffers the noise.
• B. He can sue, because he is a lawful resident.
• C. He cannot sue, because he has no interest in the land, but his father could.
• D. He can sue if he is over 16.
• E. Neither Kofi nor his father can sue because noise is not actionable.

Answer: C. Hunter v Canary Wharf requires an interest in the land, such as ownership or a tenancy. Kofi has none as a child living with parents. The father, as owner, can sue if the interference is unreasonable. A and B ignore the standing rule, and E is wrong as noise is a classic nuisance.

Checklist before you move on

• Does the claimant have an interest in the land?
• Who is the defendant: creator, occupier, landlord?
• Is there damage to land or interference with enjoyment?
• Is it unreasonable: locality, duration, sensitivity, malice?
• Defences and remedies (injunction usual).
• If a thing escaped, consider Rylands v Fletcher.

Test yourself on more original questions in our SQE1 practice questions.

Questions

Related

• SQE1 Tort
• SQE1 practice questions: how to answer single best answer items
• SQE1 mock: how to time, pace and review it

Sources: SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (from 1 September 2026); Find Case Law (National Archives); BAILII. Checked 10 November 2026.