Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:28:43.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public nuisance and particular damage in the modern law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Gilbert Kodilinye
Gilbert Kodilinye*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is an established principle that an individual who is adversely affected by a public nuisance may not sue in tort unless he can show that he has suffered ‘particular damage’ over and above that suffered by the general public. Traditionally the principle has been justified on the ground of prevention of multiplicity of suits. It is argued that unless the complainant's injury is in some way distinguishable from that suffered by the general public, the proper plaintiff is the Attorney General as the public's representative; otherwise the wrongdoer could be punished ‘a hundred times for the same cause’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 1986 , pp. 182 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Fleming, The Law of Torts, (6th edn), p 381.

2. Perhaps the strongest judicial challenge was mounted by Gibson, J in Smith v Wilson [1903] 2 IR 45 at 75, 76.Google Scholar

3. Fleming, ibid.

4. In Paine v Partrich (1691) Carth 191, the example of particular damage sufficient to support an action was ‘the loss of a horse or some corporal hurt in falling into a trench in the highway’. See Mayor of Kaiopoi v Beswick (1869) I NZCA 192 at 207, 211. See also Wall v Morrisey [1969] IR 10; Mink v Hamilton Radial Electrical Ry [1923] I DLR 268.

5. Castle v St Augwtine's Links (1922) 38 TLR 615.

6. Hawold v Wahg [1898] 2 QB 320

7. Wall v Morrissey [1969] IR 10.

8. Code v Jones & Town of Perth [1923] Ont LR 425.

9. Palmer v Nova Scotia Forest Indutries (1984) 2 DLR (4th) 397 at 483.

10. Halsg v v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 2 All ER 145. See also Stephens u Macmillan [ 19541 2 DLR 135 (damage to aircraft).

11. Overseas TanLhip (UK) Ltd u The Miller Steamship Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) 1967 1 AC 617.

14. (1882) 7 App Cas 259. See also Beckeft u Midland Railway Co (1867) LR 3 CP 82; Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd u Birkmhead Corporation [1974] 1 All ER 201.

13. Caledonian Railway Co v Ogilvy (1856) 2 Macq Sc App 229; Ricket v Metropolitan Railway Co (1867) LR 2 HL 175 at 198; Metropolitan Board of works v McCarthy (1874) LR 7 HL 243 at 261.

14. (1882) 7 App Cas 259. See also Beckett v Midland Railway Co (1867) LR 3 CP 82; Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v Birkenhead Corporation [1974] 1 All ER 201.

15. At 303.

16. (1956) 6 DLR (2d) 417.

17. (1835) 132 ER 110.

18. At 116.

19. (1874) LR 9 CP 400.

20. At 407.

21. Ibid.

22. (1880) 14 Ch D 542.

23. At 556.

24. [1914] 1 Ch 631, following Barber v Penley [1893] 2 Ch 447.

25. [1914] 1 Ch 631 at 641.

26. See also Martin v London County Council (1898) 14 TLR 575, per Kennedy J; Harper v Huden & Sons Ltd. [1933] 1 Ch 298 at 304, per Lord Hanworth M R; Attorney General v Kafero Mambule [1959] EA 665 at 673.

27. (1867) LR 2 HL 175.

28. (1835) 132 ER 110.

29. (1867) LR 2 HL 175 at 188.

30. Ibid at 199.

31. (1867) LR 3 CP 82.

32. At 100.

33. (1898) 14 TLR 575 at 576.

34. (1869) 1 NZCA 192 at 213.

35. (1867) LR 2 HL 175.

36. (1835) 132 ER 110.

37. [1931] 2 KB 334.

38. At 362. But LJ Slesser (at 372) regarded Wilkes as overruled. Lord Hanworth Mr in Harper v Haden & Sons Ltd [1933] 1 Ch 298 at 306, considered Wilkes to have been rightly decided.

39. [1978] Ch 379. See also Tatr & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509.

40. (1867) LR 2 Ex 316.

41. At 322.

42. Ibid.

43. (1867) LR 2 HL 175.

44. Eg Iveson v Moore (1699) 1 Ld Raym 486; Hart v Bassett (1681) T Jones 156; Chichester v Lethbridge (1738) Willes 71; Blagrave v Bristol Waterworks Co (1856) 1 H & N 369; Greasley v Codling (1824) 2 Bing 263.

45. Hart'v Bassett (1681) T Jones 156; Rose v Miles (1815) 4 M & S 101.

46. (1867) LR 2 Ex 316.

47. (1874) LR 9 CP 400.

48. [1895] 2 IR 555.

49. At 557.

50. (1874) LR 9 CP at 407.

51. [1903] 2 IR 45.

52. At 67.

53. At 53, 54.

54. [1903] 2 IR 45.

55. [1952] VLR 361.

56. At 368.

57. Ibid..

58. N 51 supra..

59. N 55 supra..

60. Co Litt 56a.

61. [1952] VLR at 368.

62. (1985) 14 DLR (4th) 263.

63. At 267.

64. (1970) 21 DLR 3d 368.

65. Linden (ed), Studies in Canadian Tort Law, pp 331, 332.

66. Torts (5th edn), para 89.

67. (1874) LR 7 HL 243.

68. At 263. The same view was taken by J Kenny in Smith v Wilson [1903] 2 IR 45 at 51, and by Scholl J in Walsh v Ervin [1952] VLR 361 at 366.

69. Such as Iveson v Moore (1699) 1 Ld Raym 486; Ashby v White (1704) 1 Bro Parl Cas. 61.

70. [1954] 2 All ER 561.

71. At 570.

74. (1867) LR 2 HL 175.

73. At 190, 199.

74. (1985) 14 DLR (4th) 263.

75. (1970) 21 DLR (3d) 368.

76. Prosser, Torts (5th edn), para 89.

77. N 64 supra.

78. [1927–31] Nfld LR 274 at 283, 284.

79. (1835) 132 ER 110.

80. (1874) LR 9 CO 400.

81. Leame v Bray (1803) 3 East 593 at 602, per Le Blanc J.

82. (1869) I NZCA 192.

83. At 211.

84. (1815) 4 M & S 101.

85. (1874) LR 9 CP 400.

86. [1903] 2 IR 45.

87. (1874) LR 9 CP at 407.

88. (1880) 14 Ch D 542.

89. (1867) LR 2 HL 175.

90. (1880) 14 Ch D at 555.

91. (1898) 14 TLR 575.

92. At 576.

93. [1911] 1 KB 869.

94. At 879.

95. At 876.

96. (1970) 21 DLR (3d) 368.

97. At 372.

98. It appears that Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1982] 3 WLR 77, HL, has opened the door to claims in negligence for pure economic loss and that cases such as SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W.J. Whittall & Son Ltd [1971] QB 337, which Furlong CJ followed in Hickey's case, and Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 may no longer be good law.

99. [1967] AC 617.

100. [1874] LR 9 CP.

101. [1967] AC at 636.