MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(b) Public nuisance by obstructing the highway 90. Assuming that a claimant can demonstrate commission of a public nuisance by the defendant(s), then s/he can bring a civil claim if s/he can prove (1) that s/he has sustained particular damage beyond the general inconvenience and injury suffered by the public as a result of the public nuisance; (2) that the particular damage which he has sustained is direct, not consequential; and (3) that the damage is substantial, “ not fleeting or evanescent ”: Jan De Nul (UK) Ltd -v- N.V. Royale Belge [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 700 (“ N.V. Royale Belge ”) [42] relying upon Benjamin -v- Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400 . 91. Relying upon East Hertfordshire DC -v- Isobel Hospice Trading Ltd [2001] JPL 597 , Ms Bolton submitted that “ it is well-established law that it is a public nuisance to obstruct or hinder the free passage of the public along the highway ”. That is not an accurate statement of the law and the decision upon which she relied is not authority for that proposition. The case was a judicial review of the dismissal (by a Magistrates’ Court, and then on appeal) of a local authority’s complaint under s.149 Highways Act 1980 after several large wheelie bins had been placed on a highway. The Council had served a notice on the defendant to remove the wheelie bin that it had placed on the highway. The defendant did not comply with the notice and proceedings were then brought in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates dismissed the complaint, and the Council appealed. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal. The Crown Court was satisfied that the wheelie bin was situated on the highway, but that it could not be said to be a nuisance or, if it was, “ it was a nuisance of such a piffling nature that it did not warrant the intervention of any court ”. 92. The High Court quashed the decision of the Crown Court. The Judge found that the wheelie bin was an obstruction of the highway that was not temporary. It was not relevant that people could navigate around it. The Judge concluded that the Crown Court had been wrong to hold that the positioning of the wheelie bin on the highway did not in law amount to a nuisance under s.149 ([32]), and remitted the case for redetermination: [38]. The case is not authority for what obstructions of the highway amount to a public nuisance; it is not a case about public nuisance at all. 93. The leading case concerning the common law offence of public nuisance is R -v- Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459 . In it, Lord Bingham identified Attorney General - v- PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169 as the modern authority on what amounts to a public nuisance [18]: “This was a civil action brought by the Attorney General on the relation of the Glamorgan County Council and the Pontardawe Rural District Council to restrain a nuisance by quarrying activities which were said to project stones and splinters into the neighbourhood, and cause dust and vibrations. It was argued for the company on appeal that there might have been a private nuisance affecting some of the residents, but not a public nuisance affecting all Her Majesty’s liege subjects living in the area. In his judgment Romer LJ reviewed the authorities in detail and concluded, at p.184:
‘I do not propose to attempt a more precise definition of a public nuisance than those which emerge from the textbooks and authorities to which I have referred. It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is “public” which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of
94
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator