0% found this document useful (0 votes)
51 views25 pages

Private Nuisance: Halsey v Esso Case Study

The document discusses private nuisance in Malaysia, distinguishing it from public nuisance and outlining its legal framework based on English common law and Malaysian statutes. It presents a scenario involving a resident, Alex, who experiences disturbances from garbage collection at unreasonable hours, leading to potential legal claims for damages and remedies. The document also details possible defenses for defendants and relevant case law to support the discussion.

Uploaded by

ann lu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
51 views25 pages

Private Nuisance: Halsey v Esso Case Study

The document discusses private nuisance in Malaysia, distinguishing it from public nuisance and outlining its legal framework based on English common law and Malaysian statutes. It presents a scenario involving a resident, Alex, who experiences disturbances from garbage collection at unreasonable hours, leading to potential legal claims for damages and remedies. The document also details possible defenses for defendants and relevant case law to support the discussion.

Uploaded by

ann lu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Private Nuisance in Malaysia

LAWT3314

Student: Lu Wei Ann (SCSWK2200271)


Lecturer: Miss, Liew Pei Chin
What is Private Nuisance?
Public = Private Nuisance
Public nuisance:
General public / a large group.
o blocking public roads
o large-scale pollution

• Burden of proof.
Private nuisance: Disturbs

--use or enjoyment of their land.

• loud noises, bad smells,


pollution, vibrations.

• Civil wrong – ACTIONABLE!!!!!

• Sturges v Bridgman (1879)

• Sheikh Amir bin Salleh v Chop


Hup Seng (1974)
Private Nuisance in Malaysia:

• Follows English common law


oSection 3 of the Civil Law Act
1956.

• Also supported by Malaysian


statutes:

• Environmental Quality Act 1974

• Local Government Act 1976


Malaysian courts:
• statutory authority
o Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth

• awarding damages
o Miller v Jackson (1977

• public interest and urban


development
o UDA Holdings v Koperasi Pasaraya
Malaysia [2009]
Scenario
Alex's Situation

• Lives in an apartment.

• Garbage collected noisily every night


(2–3 AM).

• Loud noises from workers and


garbage trucks.

• Strong, unbearable stench from


improper waste handling.
Application to Alex’s Scenario

MORE LIKELY THAN NOT


• Substantial
• Unreasonable
• Has caused him damage
1. Interference with Property

sleep and comfort are disturbed

• loud noise & foul smells (every night)

• Sheikh Amir bin Salleh v Chop Hup Seng [1974] 2 MLJ 125

• Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’villa Equestrian


[2015] 4 MLJ 204 FC
2. Unreasonable Interference

• unreasonable hours (2–3 AM)

• loud crashing sounds & a strong smell.

• Ong Koh Hou v Perbadanan Bandar & Anor [2009] 8 MLJ 616

• Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan v Kim Seng Enterprise


[2013] 5 MLJ 360
3. Damage
• prove actual damage

• Alex:
• health problems, stress, and difficulty concentrating
• due to ongoing sleep disturbance.

• Chin Lih Lih & Ors v Sunrise Alliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] MLJU
1437
• Halsey v Esso Petroleum (1961)
Remedies Available to Alex

1. Injunction

stop

limit the disturbance.

Kennaway v Thompson (1981)


COMPENSATION HEALTH PROBLEMS STRESS &
INCONVENIENCE

2. Damages :

LOSS OF SLEEP AND HALSEY V ESSO


REDUCED QUALITY OF PETROLEUM (1961)
LIFE
3. Complaint to Authorities

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY


1976 -SECTION 72 ACT 1974 - SECTION 21
Defences - Defendant

• May argue that


• 1️⃣ Statutory Authority
• If the garbage collection schedule is mandated by local
regulations.
• Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth:
• Statutory approval sometimes weighs in defence.
2️⃣ Prescription

D - may claim

ong period (usually 20 years) without complaint

thus acquiring a right to continue.


3️⃣ Coming to the Nuisance

D – may argue

plaintiff moved to the location knowing about the existing


nuisance.
4️⃣Reasonable Use

D – may argue

actions are a reasonable use of their property.


It is up to the court to decide - defenses raised by D are valid

• Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan • Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan


Penduduk D’villa Equestrian (2015) v Kim Seng Enterprise (2013)

• The court considered: • The court considered:

• whether the interference significantly • whether the interference was


impacted the plaintiff's comfort and reasonable given the circumstances.
convenience.
Thank u !!!!!
Bibliography
• Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852

• Sheikh Amir bin Salleh v Chop Hup Seng [1974] 2 MLJ 125.

• Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88

• Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 2 All ER 145

• Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966

• Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992] 4 CLJ 2207

• UDA Holdings Bhd v Koperasi Pasaraya Malaysia Bhd [2009] 1 MLJ 1

• Ong Koh Hou v Perbadanan Bandar & Anor [2009] 8 MLJ 616.

• Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan Sdn Bhd v Kim Seng Enterprise (Kedah) Sdn Bhd [2013] 5 MLJ 360.

• Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’villa Equestrian [2015] 4 MLJ 204 FC.
• Chin Lih Lih & Ors v Sunrise Alliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] MLJU 1437

• Thomas Philip Advocates and Solicitors, 2025. Saving Private Nuisance. [online] Available
at: [Link]

• Lecturer’s note [Liew Pei Chin] (2025) ‘Private Nuisance’, LAWT3314: Law of Tort 2, [Segi College]

• Tuitt, P., Bermingham, V. and McLaughlin, M. (2015) Tort Law. London: University of London.

• Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127). Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171). LawTeacher.
November 2013. Private Nuisance. [online]. Available from: [Link]
essays/land-law/[Link]?vref=1

• Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67)

• Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127)

• Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171)

You might also like