This constituted non-natural user for the purposes of the tort in Rylands v Fletcher, but the type of damage was unforeseeable and for that reason the defendant was not liable.

Planning permission had long ago been granted for speedway racing, on the basis of which it was claimed it constituted noise nuisance.

Planning permission could not change the character of a neighbourhood so as to effectively ‘legalize’ a nuisance.

A landowner successfully sued the MoD in private nuisance for damage to his enjoyment of his land and diminution in value, citing breach of arts 8 and 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

The public benefit of the flights did not prevent them being held to be a nuisance, but it did mean that damages, rather than an injunction, was the remedy.

Planning permission had been granted to develop a commercial port in a neighbourhood which had previously been residential. Owing to the effective change in the character of the locality, the nuisance claim failed.

Planning permission can be the basis for a definitive change in the nature of a locality. It is not the same as the defence of statutory authority.

A tree on the defendant’s property was hit by lightning and he neglected to put out the fire adequately, which spread to the plaintiff’s property.

The defendant was liable for this naturally occurring source of nuisance which he should have, but failed to, abate.

The defendant operated a large oil refinery in a residential area, causing smoke fumes and acid smuts to fall in the neighbourhood. Lorries were noisy all night.

The defendant was liable in both private nuisance to home owners and in public nuisance to those whose cars were damaged.

The defendant shot guns on the edge of his property, where it bordered the plaintiff’s silver fox farm. He did it in order to disturb the breeding of the animals.

Although the shooting was not in itself unlawful, the malicious purpose of the defendant made it an actionable nuisance.

The construction of the Canary Wharf development created a large amount of dust in the neighbourhood, as well as interfering with the TV reception of many of the residents.

Interference with TV could constitute an actionable nuisance, when not caused by a standing structure. Contrary to previous suggestions by the Court of Appeal, only those with an interest in land could bring an action in nuisance.

The defendant had failed to repair sewers he had responsibility for and they overflowed, causing flooding.

In the first major nuisance case to employ human rights arguments, the defendant was initially held liable in private nuisance but the House of Lords overruled this owing to the existence of a statutory scheme of regulation.

Homeowners bordering a railway embankment infested with Japanese knotweed, brought an action in private nuisance claiming damages for diminution in value of their homes, and injunctive relief requiring treatment and elimination of the knotweed.

Pure economic loss in value did not constitute actionable damage in private nuisance; only loss of amenity in terms of use and enjoyment of the land would. However that was present in this case.

A sink became blocked in the defendant’s property. It overflowed and caused a flood in the premises below. The claim in Rylands v Fletcher failed.

This could not be described as ‘non-natural user of land’. The definition was given of a ‘special use’ bringing with it ‘increased danger’ to others.

The defendant produced warm air in the basement of a building and it reached the second floor where the plaintiff stored delicate brown paper.

The warm air would not have damaged ordinary paper. Owing to the plaintiff’s special sensitivity, no nuisance had been committed.

The defendant employed independent contractors to build a reservoir on his land. They failed to secure old shafts and the water burst through and flooded the plaintiff’s mine.

The defendant was held strictly liable on the basis that he had collected this mischief-causing water on his land and allowed it to escape and damage the plaintiff’s land. The tort in Rylands v Fletcher was established.

A drain had been placed on the defendant’s property by a third party without permission. The defendant had allowed it to become blocked and it overflowed onto the plaintiff’s land.

The defendant was liable in nuisance, because as the occupier of the land, he had used the drain for his own purposes and had thus adopted it.

The defendant’s copper smelting works produced vapours which damaged trees on the plaintiff’s estate and therefore was liable in nuisance.

In cases involving material injury to property, the influence of the locality in which the events took place would not be taken into account in determining nuisance.

For more than 20 years a doctor had property which adjoined a confectionery works. He then built a new consulting room at the end of his property and was then disturbed by noise and vibration from the confectionery works. It was held to be an actionable nuisance.

Coming to the nuisance is not a defence. Nor did the defence of prescription apply because the source of the nuisance was new.

The water pipe installed by the defendant burst, leading to a landslip, which meant that the claimant had to make extensive repairs to protect his gas main. His action under Rylands was unsuccessful.

The piping of water to domestic premises was not a non-natural use of land. The tort in Rylands still has a place in English law and should not be incorporated into negligence or nuisance.