# data[].attributes.body
injunction - ordering the defendant to stop causing the action
Abatement - entering the defendant's premises in order to prevent further nuisance.

# data[].attributes.body
The court will take various factors into account when evaluating if the defendants actions are reasonable: Malice, sensitivity, the nature of the area, time of day/week, duration and social benefits.

South wark London Borough Council v Mills (1999)
Mills was a tenant in a council flat which was built in 1919 and owned by Southwark LBC. Mills complained under a provision within the tenancy agreement that the noise insulation between the flats was wholly inadequate as against normal use of the premises. Mills sought an order that the ineffective insulation amounted to a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment, and therefore, specific works should be conducted to remedy this.

Held:The noise was caused by structural defects which were present at the time of the grant and must have been in the contemplation of the parties and the council could not, therefore, be held to have been in breach of covenant.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not necessary but if there is actual physical damage the claim is more likely to succeed.

The interference can include,but is not limited to:

fumes drifting over the neighbouring land

smell from farm animals

noise from a children's playground (gunfire, speedway/ motor racing circuit)

Vibrations from industrial machinery

hot air rising into other premises

oily smuts from chimneys

fire

cricket balls being hit into a garden

St. Helens Smelting Co. Ltd v Tipping (1865)  - The claimant was the owner of a large country house with over a thousand acres of land.  This land was close to a copper smelting factory which had long been in operation.  The smelting factory discharged noxious gases as a result of its operation, which were considered to be a normal part of the smelting operation.  As a result, trees on the claimant’s land were damaged by the fumes and noxious gases.  The claimant sued in nuisance.

Held:Where there had been physical damage to the claimant’s property as had occurred in this case the question of the character of the locality itself was irrelevant, where it may have been relevant if the alleged nuisance was only in the form of discomfort.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: over the years a variety of actions have been decided as amounting to a nuisance, e.g. fumes, smell from animals and cricket balls in a garden.

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997): C was a number of people living in ELDN where Canary Wharf office tower was being built, this effected their TV connection. Court confirmed the rule that only those with an interest in the land, and not members of families, had the right to bring an action.

# data[].attributes.body
involves competing rights of neighbours to use their lands as they wish.
The Claimant:

must have an interest in the land ( they have to have some sort of control or responsibility over the land)

The Defendant:
The person who is causing or *allowing  the nuisance

*Allowing the nuisance (Tetley v Chitty: local authority who allowed go-kart racing on its land was held liable for a nuisance)

# data[].attributes.body
"An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, coming from neighbouring land."