Ms Mercy K Khaute, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
ABSTRACT
The peculiarity of nuisance as tort, that gives it an interesting position in law is the open question whether the tort seeks to protect property itself or protect an individual’s right to enjoyment of the property, if the harm that it seeks to address is physical damage or one that is not visible to the eye. Development of laws coupled with the complexities of claims necessitates understanding the contours of the tort of private nuisance, the position on the right to sue and who can sue. Often the divide between the tort of negligence and nuisance is blurred so much so that any claims for damages may fall within the torts of negligence, trespass vis-a-vis nuisance. It is with this backdrop that the paper seeks to analyse the tort of private nuisance through the case of Hunter v. Canary Wharf wherein it was held by the Court that interferences leading to disturbances in the receiving of television signals by subscribers caused by the erection and or construction of a permanent fixture do not amount to the tort of private nuisance. The paper begins with a brief discussion on the origin nature of the tort. Followed by a discourse on the case of Hunter v. Canary Wharf. The third part of the paper is an analysis on who can sue, followed in the fourth part is an attempt to answer the question on if the right to sue should be extended. The fifth part deliberates on the position of private nuisance with regards to the right to privacy, navigated through a short cross jurisdictional study. Lastly the paper concludes with the author’s observations.
Comments