St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping

Facts

Tipping bought an estate near St Helens in Lancashire. The company ran a copper smelting works nearby, in an area with other works producing fumes. Vapours from the smelter harmed trees, shrubs and crops on Tipping's land and he sued in nuisance. The company said the district was industrial and that the works were lawfully carried on in the neighbourhood.

History

A jury at trial found for Tipping and awarded damages. The company's challenges to the verdict failed in the courts below, and it appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether a smelting company was liable in nuisance for material damage to neighbouring land caused by its fumes, despite the character of the neighbourhood and the fact that the works were reasonably carried on.

Held

Appeal dismissed. The company was liable in nuisance because the fumes caused sensible injury to the value of the property.

Ratio

• Where an interference with a neighbour's land causes material, sensible injury to the property itself, it is actionable as a nuisance regardless of the character of the locality.
• Where the complaint is of mere personal discomfort, the character of the neighbourhood is relevant to whether the interference is an actionable nuisance, so that what is tolerable in an industrial area may be actionable elsewhere.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• Material damage to land and crops is a clear invasion of the owner's rights, so the fact that a defendant carries on a lawful business in an industrial district does not licence it to damage neighbours' property.
• For discomfort the court must consider the standards of the locality, because a person living in a manufacturing area cannot expect the same conditions as in a rural district.
• The jury's finding that damage was caused by the fumes disposed of the case, and the court was not required to ask whether the defendant had used the best available methods.

Where it fits in the module

For FHS Tort, St Helen's Smelting is a starred case on private nuisance, its balance between competing land uses and its relation to the locality principle. It sets out the basic structure of the tort: the distinction between damage to property and interference with enjoyment and the idea that reasonableness between neighbours is the touchstone. Students should compare it with Sturges v Bridgman, Hunter v Canary Wharf and Coventry v Lawrence and assess whether the distinction between the two kinds of nuisance is satisfactory.

Criticisms

• The distinction between material injury and mere discomfort is difficult to apply, because harm to health or comfort can be as serious as damage to crops and the dividing line depends on how the harm is characterised.
• Making locality irrelevant for property damage ignores the interests of those who established industry in the area and who may have been there long before the claimant arrived.
• The case does not explain how reasonableness enters, since it treats the damage as sufficient for liability even where the defendant has conducted its business with care.