Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169<\/strong><\/p>\n Nuisance \u2013 Public Nuisance \u2013 Indiscriminate Effect<\/p>\n The defendants operated a quarry and used a blasting technique which emitted large quantities of dust and noise, as well as causing vibrations which interfered with the enjoyment of land for many individuals in the area.\u00a0 The claimants sought an injunction preventing the continuation of a public nuisance as a result.\u00a0 The defendant\u2019s alleged that what was being carried out was in fact a private nuisance which effected only those in the area and that they were therefore not bound by the injunction prohibiting \u2018public nuisance\u2019 as a result.<\/p>\n Were the defendant\u2019s actions a private or public nuisance?\u00a0 What was the distinguishing feature between a private and public nuisance and at which point did a private nuisance become public in nature?<\/p>\n The blasting operation was capable of constituting a public nuisance and the injunction could be granted to prevent it.\u00a0 Whilst it was difficult to precisely define the difference between a public and a private nuisance, a public nuisance could be one which materially affected the reasonable comfort or convenience of a class of Her Majesty\u2019s subjects.\u00a0 What constitutes a \u2018class\u2019 of people within a neighbourhood depends on the facts of any particular case and it is impossible to define the precise number of individuals necessarily effected for them to be considered a \u2018class\u2019.\u00a0 Neither do all individuals within the class have to be personally affected by the nuisance, as long as a representative cross section have been so effected.\u00a0 A public nuisance is so indiscriminate in its effect that it could not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on their own to stop it.\u00a0 Instead, it was the responsibility of the community at large, and that was what had occurred in this case.\u00a0 As such, the injunction was granted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" AG v PYA. The defendants operated a quarry and used a blasting technique which emitted large quantities of dust and noise, as well as causing vibrations which interfered with the enjoyment of land for many individuals in the area.<\/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-5729","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