Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd
A public nuisance is one that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects.
Facts
PYA Quarries operated a quarry, where blasting caused stones and splinters to be thrown out, and caused dust and vibrations that affected local residents and people using nearby roads. The Attorney General brought proceedings for an injunction on the ground that the quarrying was a public nuisance.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the quarrying was a public nuisance, and granted an injunction. Romer LJ said that any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects, and that the sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as the neighbourhood. Denning LJ said that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
- Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] QB 485
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
