Tort - Year 2014 Question 3

Local Residents v Alam Sdn Bhd

Public Nuisance

1. Civil proceeding (without special damage) as provided by S.8 (1) Government Proceeding Act
1956

MPPP v Boey Siew Than

Obstruction of road by organising a demonstration

2. Civil proceeding (with special damage)

Pf must prove that he has suffered damage and injury over and above the ordinary
inconvenience by other members of the public

Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill

Burning of padi husk that caused Pf suffered from machines covered by dust and lubricant
oil also become dirty.

Local residents could bring the case under civil proceeding (without special damage) because there
was unpleasant smell from the site. There is no defence on the part of Df.

Aini v Alam Sdn Bhd

Private Nuisance

Unlawful, substantial & unreasonable interference with a persons use, comfort, enjoyment and
interest that a person may have over his land.

Hiap Lee Brickmakers Ltd v W L Mining

Right to enjoy ones property

St Helen Smelting Co v Tipping

For personal discomfort (non-physical damage), the level of interference must be balanced with
surrounding circumstances and the nature of the locality must be taken into account. However,
locality or surrounding circumstances is irrelevant if the interference causes physical damage to
property.

Bliss v Hall

Factory had been there before the Pf but Pf had his rights to clean air.

Interference suffered by Aini is unreasonable and continuous where her students might not attend
class at the same time and it affects their class. Therefore, Aini could bring her case under private
nuisance because she has lost her students due to dust and noise generated from the site. There is
no defence on the part of Df.
Siti v Alam Sdn Bhd

Private Nuisance

Dust from the site was continuous interference that has adversely affecting Siti asthma. However
extraordinary sensitivity might be raised as defence because sensitivity cannot be used as a basis to
claim even though Dfs conduct constitutes an unreasonable and substantial interference.

Robinson v Kilvert

Hot air from Df premise caused moisture in Pfs papers to dry up. Court held that ordinary paper
would not have been affected by hot air. Therefore, Pf property was extra sensitive thus Df is not
liable for claim by Pf.

However once unreasonable and substantial interference is established, sensitivity will not deprive
the Pf from remedy.

McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker

Noxious fumes emitted by Dfs factory had damaged Pfs commercially grown and delicate orchids.
The court found that the Df liable as the fumes would have damaged flowers of ordinary sensitivity.

Hence Siti would have succeed to bring the case if she could prove that other residents have suffered
from difficulties in breathing also. Siti can claim even though she is a tenant with reference to the
case of Khorasandijian v Bush. There is no defence on the part of Df.

Ramu v Alam Sdn Bhd

Private Nuisance Single Interference

Spicer v Smee

Pf house was burnt down due to a defective wiring system in the Dfs adjoining house. The court
found that the Df is liable as there was dangerous state of affairs on his premise whereby his
neighbours property is exposed to danger.

Ramu could bring the case with reference to Spicer v Smee however Df could easily defence. The
incident is done by the act of third party which is unforeseeable and uncontrollable.