Robinson v Kilvert
A claimant cannot complain of a nuisance that affects him only because of his abnormally sensitive use of his property.
Facts
Mr Kilvert let the upper floor of a building to Mr Robinson, who used it to store brown paper. Mr Kilvert used the cellar below for making paper boxes, which required a hot and dry atmosphere, so he heated the cellar. The heat passed through the floor and damaged Mr Robinson's brown paper, reducing its value. Ordinary paper would not have been damaged.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Kilvert was not liable. Lopes LJ said that a man who carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by his neighbour doing something lawful on his property, if it is something which would not injure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade. The heat would not have affected ordinary paper or the comfort of the people working there, so it was not a nuisance.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- 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
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.
