St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] UKHL J81

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.

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.

The full text is available here:

Tags: