Course: Tort Law

Title: private Nuisance-problem Q

***HOW SUBSTANTIAL? HOW UNREASONABLE? Take care of yr words in enhancing the seriousness
Date: 2019- 8-7
2017 . Question no. 1
Identify: Whether Elsa can take any legal action against Yayasan Amal under private nuisance?
It’s a private
In This is case it is a private nuisance. The way to distinguish betw. public nuisance and
nuisance
private nuisance is tat Pf have the private use and enjoyment of his property. According to
6casescitedonly Hiap Lee Brickmakers v Weng Lok Mining Co.Ltd, it stated tat generally private nuisance
arises when there’s unlawful interference with the use or enjoyment of Pf’s land.
Show how does
the substantial The Pf, Elsa need not to prove special damage in contrast to public nuisance which need to
interference is prove for special damage. However, Pf need to prove 2 element. First is substantial
so substantial to interference and second is the unreasonable interference.
pf?
For substantial interference in this case is the interference of use, comfort or enjoyment of the
Use case land. In this case, the substantial interference is the noises tat keep her up at night because of
ex.bukit merah the live band music operate 3 times a week, from 7pm to midnight. Case we can apply here is
show from the Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth, In this case the Pf who was a resident in Bukit Merah
scenarios how alleged tat the activity produced dangerous radioactive gases which r harmful to the resident
substantial they in Bukit Merah. It was held tat private nuisance was established no actual damage needs to be
suffered and prove. The Pf health was been affected harmly to a substantial degree. Therefore, in this case,
apply it to the Elsa cannot sleep has substantially affected her health. Therefore in the case, the element of
case interference of use, comfort or enjoyment of land has been established.
In this case, in terms of substantial interference, the material or physical damage to land or
property. In this case, because she complaint tat there’r items fall from a shelf of her house
Number 2 is which means tat there’ve been some physical damage to her property. The case we can appy
unreasonablenes here is the Hotel Continental v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion, where in this case, there’ve been
s severe crack can be seen on the wall of Mansion and there has some excessive vibration
How does created by the piling works. It was held tat because of this nuisance, it create come physical
factors can damage to the respondent’ property. Therefore, in this case becoz of some elements tat fallen
guide to see how off from the shelf of her house, so it’s actually a physical damage in the houses of her
much reasonable property.
or not? Choose
from it to apply Therefore, the first element substantial interference had established. Because there’s
3-4factors. sufficient evidence to show there’re interference to use, comfort or enjoyment of land and
material or physical damage to the land.

For the second element is the interference are unreasonable. The first factor for unreasonable
interference is damage and location of the premises. In this case, she complaint of the smell
tat release from soup kitchen of the shelter. The case to be cited is Bliss v Hall, this is case it
was held tat the Pf is hv the right to clean air. In applying this case to this Q, which means tat
it equally entitled to clean air, becoz she complaint tat there was some smell tat she release
from the shelter. Therefore, this element has been satisfied.
Secondly, referring to the Syarikat Perniagaan Selangor Sdn Bhd v Fahro Rozi Mohdi & Ors,
there was some noise from the music live band which is held to be intolerable. In this case,
the live band releases a lot of noise becoz it start from 7pm until midnight, which operate
3times a week. There had been nuisance to Elsa.

The second factor for the unreasonable interference is public benefit of the Df’s activities. In
this case even though the foundation created is for the public benefit because it actually aim is
to provide shelter for homeless pp from the town rather then hv them sleep on the street. Even
there’s defences tat give rise to public benefit it doesn’t automatically mean tat their activity r
not actionable. So it’s still a nuisance even though it create public benefit. The case tat we can
code is Perbadanan Pengurusan Tanah Bukit Jambul v Kerajaan M’sia, in this case the govt.
set a clinic for non-profit purposes, it’s to serve public who cannot afford to go for private
clinics. So the aim is mean for non-profit purposes, so the application, from this case is tat,
eventhough it provides shelter to the homeless pp but it doesn’t mean tat they can create
nuisance/give waran for create nuisance. Therefore, it’s the factors which contribute to the
element of unreasonable interference.
And lastly factor is tat the interferences must be continuous. In This case because the live
band operate 3 times a week and from 7pm to midnight. Therefore, it show that there’s
continuous interferences.
Therefore, all these 3 factors has been satisfied.

Based on the argument discuss above, both the 2 elements of nuisance had been established.
There’s no suitable defense on part of the defence for Df.

We propose tat the foundation is liable for nuisance and there’s pretty much no defences for
the defendant.
This is because if we were to considered the prescription or statutory authority, there r no
relevance defences in their parts in this cases.

In order to make the defendant liable under private nuisance tat the Pf had suffered the
interferences was so substantial(ketara/dahsyat).
Although the 2 elements had been satisfied, however, defendant can raise a defense of