Study Notes
Key Case | Pusey v Somerset County Council (2012) | Nuisance – Sensitivity of the Claimant
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 9 Oct 2020
The court held that for an actionable case in nuisance there must be a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average person.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: John and Cherry Pusey
Defendant: Council
Facts: The claimants owned a farm in Somerset, the farm was surrounded by roads and was adjacent to a strip of land owned by the Council, which had been used as layby for decades. The claimants complained that the layby was being used as a toilet and caused litter and fly-tipping, their nuisance claim was on the basis of vibrations and sounds caused by heavy vehicles parking in the layby.
Outcome: Not Liable
Legal principle: In this case there was no actionable case of nuisance as the appeal court felt that the claimants had become unusually obsessed with the incidents in the layby. The court held that for an actionable case in nuisance there must be a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living according to the standards of the average person. Abnormal sensitivity to noise or the other matters complained of is not therefore sufficient to find a cause of action.