Sensitivity and foreseeability in private nuisance: where are we today?
The relationship between ‘hypersensitive’ land uses and foreseeability in private nuisance has become increasingly unclear. This article revisits the leading authorities, from Robinson v Kilvert to Fearn, to examine how the traditional cases sit alongside the modern emphasis on foreseeability.
Environmental regulation: call for evidence
Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has issued a call for evidence on environmental regulation. This note outlines the focus of the enquiry and identifies issues of practical relevance to those involved in environmental permitting. My submission is also included as well as links on how to apply.
![Andrews v. Kronospan Ltd [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC)](https://wiglaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Kronospan.jpeg)
Andrews v. Kronospan Ltd [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC)
Private Nuisance and ‘Intangible’ Interferences – Nuisance Threshold – Dust Nuisance – Assessing Future Risks from Clients and the Judge – The Utility of Expert Evidence
Update on the new law on private nuisance: how is it being applied?
It is worth looking at how the law on private nuisance is being applied following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in 2023 in Fearn v. Tate Gallery
Rights to light; private nuisance; injunctions and damages in lieu – new law after Lawrence v. Fen Tigers (2014) and One-Step (Support) Ltd v. Morris-Garner (2018)
Rights to light; private nuisance; injunctions and damages in lieu – new law after Lawrence v. Fen Tigers (2014) and One-Step (Support) Ltd v. Morris-Garner (2018)
Private nuisance – assessing compensation in amenity cases – what do Irish authorities tell us?
How should general damages be assessed in cases of ‘sensible personal discomfort’? Irish authorities in respect of noise nuisance from windfarms have become extremely sophisticated and raise the question whether revision is needed to the approach in England & Wales, especially following Fearn v. Tate Gallery Trustees.
Private nuisance – high value interference with amenity cases – applying Fearn – Nicholas v. Thomas I
The recent judgment in Nicholas v. Thomas [2025] EWHC 752 (Ch) is an important update to the ground-breaking judgment of Fearn v. Tate Gallery Trustees [2024] AC 1. Fearn was concerned with those types of private nuisance where there has been a ‘sensible’ interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
Principles of Private Nuisance as set out in Fearn: (7) Public benefit
the consequences of the judgment of Leggatt JSC in Fearn v. Tate Gallery Trustees [2023] UKSC 4 [2023] 1 WLR 339. Leggatt JSC’s majority judgment elevated a variety of themes conventionally used to determine what is a nuisance into a set of applicable ‘principles’
Principles of Private Nuisance as set out in Fearn: (6) Hypersensitivity
This is the sixth in a short series of posts which assesses the consequences of the judgment of Leggatt JSC in Fearn v. Tate Gallery Trustees [2023] UKSC 4 [2023] 1 WLR 339. Leggatt JSC’s majority judgment elevated a variety of themes conventionally used to determine what is a nuisance into a set of applicable ‘principles’. These posts are a summary of those principles.
Principles of Private Nuisance as set out in Fearn: (5) Reasonable user, reciprocity and the use of “best practicable means”
onsidering the consequences of the judgment of Leggatt JSC in Fearn v. Tate Gallery Trustees [2023] UKSC 4 [2023] 1 WLR 339. Leggatt JSC’s judgment has caused some surprise since he elevated a variety of themes used to determine what is a nuisance into a set of applicable ‘principles’.