Court of Appeal · Romer LJ, Denning LJ and Parker LJ
Facts
A quarrying company carried on blasting and other operations that sent dust and vibration over the surrounding area, affecting many people living nearby. The Attorney-General sued to restrain the nuisance, and the company argued that what was complained of was at most a private nuisance affecting individuals.
History
The Attorney-General succeeded at first instance in obtaining relief against the company, which appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issue
What makes a nuisance public as opposed to private, and whether the quarry's dust and vibration affected a sufficient section of the public.
Held
Appeal dismissed. The nuisance was public because it materially affected the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public.
Ratio
- A public nuisance is a nuisance which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects, and whether the class is sufficiently large is a question of fact in each case.
- It is not necessary that every member of the class be affected to the same degree, provided the nuisance is shown to affect the class as a whole in a way that justifies action by the Attorney-General.
The judgments
Romer LJ (concurring)
Defined a public nuisance as one which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of subjects, and held that this was shown on the facts.
Denning LJ (concurring)
Said that a public nuisance is one so widespread in range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, and so should be taken on behalf of the community at large.
Key reasoning
- The distinction between public and private nuisance turns on the number of people affected and the nature of the interference, with private nuisance protecting individual rights over land and public nuisance protecting the public as such.
- Because the nuisance affected many people living in the neighbourhood and could not sensibly be left to individual claims, it was properly dealt with by the Attorney-General seeking an injunction.
Where it fits in the module
For FHS Tort, the case is the leading authority on the meaning of public nuisance. It is listed beside section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which replaced the common law offence of public nuisance with a statutory offence of causing serious harm to the public, so students must be able to analyse the common law definition, the role of the class of subjects, and how the statutory wording relates to it. It also supports the debate over how far public nuisance should be used in the context of protest.
Criticisms
- The idea of a class of Her Majesty's subjects is vague, and neither judgment gives a fixed test for how large or how defined the class must be.
- Denning LJ's approach, which looks to whether it would be reasonable to expect one person to sue, turns on policy and practicality and is not an element a court can apply with certainty.
- Combining criminal and civil conceptions of public nuisance in one tort has been criticised for allowing a broad common law offence to expand liability in a way that Parliament has not authorised.
Written with AI (claude-sonnet-5.5 (Claude Code writer)) on 1 November 2026, reviewed for errors by a second model (claude-sonnet-5.5 (Claude Code checker)). Read the case itself at [1957] 2 QB 169. Spotted an error? Tell us.