A householder sees that workers employed by a building company have come to her neighbour's house to paint the windows. As the workers carry out their duties, they play loud music on the radio. The work takes one day to complete. The householder is angry at the disturbance caused by the music and decides to pursue a claim in private nuisance. In relation to the householder's claim in private nuisance, which of the following is correct?
A householder sees that workers employed by a building company have come to her neighbour's house to paint the windows. As the workers carry out their duties, they play loud music on the radio. The work takes one day to complete. The householder is angry at the disturbance caused by the music and decides to pursue a claim in private nuisance. In relation to the householder's claim in private nuisance, which of the following is correct?
The householder is not likely to have a successful claim in nuisance because the noise disturbance only lasted for one day.
(A) The householder is not likely to have a successful claim. Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of land. An interference is unlawful when it is substantial and unreasonable. Private nuisance also requires there to be a continuing state of affairs. On the facts, neither of these appear to be satisfied because the noise disturbance only lasted for one day. Therefore, she is not likely to have a successful claim. (B) is not correct. First, on the facts, there does not appear to be an actionable nuisance, as stated above. Second, a person is only liable for nuisances created by independent contractors where the activities with which the contractor is engaged carry a special danger of causing a nuisance. This does not appear to be satisfied on the facts (the contractors were engaged to paint the house, not to do an inherently noisy activity). (C) is not correct. If the workers had caused an actionable nuisance, then the householder could have claimed against them personally. If the nuisance had been caused during the course of their employment, then the claim could also have been pursued against their employer, who would be vicariously liable for their tort. (D) is not correct. It is not sufficient for the householder to show that the noise made by the workers interfered with her quiet enjoyment of her land. She must also show that the interference was substantial and unreasonable and resulted from a continuing state of affairs, as discussed above. (E) is not correct. Private nuisance provides a remedy for unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of land. This does not require tangible damage to property; intangible damage such as interference with amenity caused by noise is recoverable in nuisance.