Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
Acid smuts from an oil depot which damaged a neighbour's car parked in the street were actionable in public nuisance and under Rylands v Fletcher, and noise and smell were private nuisances.
Facts
Mr Halsey lived in a residential street in Fulham, opposite an oil distribution depot operated by Esso. The depot emitted acid smuts from its boilers, which damaged washing hanging in his garden and the paintwork of his car parked in the street. There was also a pungent smell, and the noise of the boilers and of tankers arriving and leaving at night. He sued for damages and an injunction.
Legal principle
Veale J held that Esso was liable. The smell and the noise at night were a private nuisance, because they caused a substantial interference with the enjoyment of Mr Halsey's home, judged by the standards of an ordinary person living in the area. The damage to the washing was a private nuisance and was also actionable under Rylands v Fletcher, and the damage to the car, which was parked on the public highway, was actionable as a public nuisance, because Mr Halsey had suffered special damage. The case is a classic illustration of the overlap between the different torts in environmental cases.
Related cases on environmental torts and civil liability
- Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001
- Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312, [2013] QB 455
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, [2009] QB 335
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 28
- Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
Studying environmental 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.
