St Helen\u2019s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] 11 HL Cas 642<\/strong><\/p>\n Private Nuisance \u2013 Physical Damage to Property \u2013 Character of Locality<\/p>\n The claimant was the owner of a large country house with over a thousand acres of land.\u00a0 This land was close to a copper smelting factory which had long been in operation.\u00a0 The smelting factory discharged noxious gases as a result of its operation, which were considered to be a normal part of the smelting operation.\u00a0 As a result, trees on the claimant\u2019s land were damaged by the fumes and noxious gases.\u00a0 The claimant sued in nuisance.<\/p>\n Whether the defendant had acquired the right to carry on with the discharge of their fumes as a result of the smelting through acquisition and long usage.\u00a0 Whether it was a defence that the claimant \u2018came to the nuisance\u2019.<\/p>\n The claim was allowed.\u00a0 It was no defence to say that the claimant \u2018came to the nuisance\u2019 and the defendant could not be said to have acquired a right through prescription to continue to discharge noxious fumes.\u00a0 Whilst smelting and the discharge of these fumes was not in itself unlawful, and in a locality in which this was to be expected there could be no nuisance.\u00a0 However, in nuisance cases like this, it is necessary to distinguish between nuisance alleged to have caused loss of amenities and comfort, and nuisance which is said to have caused physical damage to property.\u00a0 Where there had been physical damage to the claimant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The claimant was the owner of a large country house with over a thousand acres of land.\u00a0 This land was close to a copper smelting factory which had long been in operation.\u00a0 The smelting factory discharged noxious gases as a result of its operation, which were considered to be a normal part of the smelting operation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n
Decision\/Outcome<\/h3>\n