Facts
- A man bought a property near a copper smelter.
- The vapours caused damage to trees & livestock.
- He brought an action against them.
- The judge directed the jury that a man cannot use his property to cause injury but everything must be looked at with a reasonable view. The law does not regard trifling inconvenience as actionable.
Issue
- Whether the direction was correct, in relation to nuisance
Held
- The directions were correct.
- The copper smelter did create a nuisance.
- There is a distinction between a nuisance that creates injury versus one that causes discomfort. In the latter, whether this constitutes a nuisance depends on where it exists (e.g. a town is noisy).
- It is a question of compound facts and circumstances.
- The copper smelter was in a manufacturing area but the business was not carried on properly due to proximity to the town.
- Material injury to property and value of property; this was achieved.
Full Text
The full text is available here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3302936?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
-- Download St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] UKHL J81 as PDF --

