The Public Right and Wrongs: Tort Theory and the Problem of Public Nuisance

Tort theory over the past two decades has been characterized by a fruitful dialectic between two models. Instrumentalism, especially, in its deterrence mode, has been promoted by a wide coalition of scholars and jurists. In response, various critics of instrumentalism have argued for the autonomy of tort law, first under the umbrella of corrective justice and later under civil recourse. The success of civil recourse depends in part on its ability to explain emerging areas of focus in tort law. One such area is public nuisance, which, despite some setbacks, is viewed by the plaintiffs bar, state actors, and some members of the academy as an effective tool to address significant social problems, such as the opioid crisis. This article asks whether, and how, civil recourse theory can accommodate modern public nuisance law.

Living Together as Neighbours: Rethinking the Reasonableness Standard in Nuisance Law Under the Constitution

The Covid-19 pandemic, with its concomitant "stay at home" catchphrase, has certainly made living together as neighbours in a constitutional dispensation more tangible. Conflicts between neighbours will inevitably increase, especially in a time when citizens from different social, cultural, customary or religious backgrounds and with different rights and interests are restricted to the boundaries of their properties as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic has provided us with the impetus to reflect upon the notion of "reasonableness" in neighbour law, particularly nuisance law in the narrow sense. In this context the role of neighbour law is ordinarily to regulate the relationship between neighbours. Therefore, neighbour law is crucial in that it resolves conflicts that arise between neighbours due to their everyday use of their properties. Whether the nuisance is objectively reasonable or goes beyond that which can be reasonably tolerable under the circumstances requires weighing up various factors dependant on the prevailing circumstances, rights, interests, values and obligations of the neighbours and the community. In the constitutional dispensation, based on the values of human dignity, equality, and freedom, this may inadvertently require courts to balance out and reconcile often opposing constitutional rights. To this end the underlying principle of nuisance law encapsulated in the phrases "give and take" and "live and let live" arguably already encapsulates the notion of balancing respective rights (constitutional or otherwise) and interests given the context of each case. However, courts do not always correctly apply the reasonableness test in a principled and coherent fashion, as illustrated in Ellaurie v Madrasah Taleemuddeen Islamic Institute 2021 2 SA 163 (KZD). This may lead to the conclusion that constitutional rights are ignored when the reasonableness test for nuisance law is applied. It is necessary to reconceptualise the reasonableness test in order to ensure that the common law is infused with constitutional values. There are numerous ways in which the ideals and values of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (and even specific constitutional rights other than property rights) could be advanced if courts were more willing (not being held back by conservatism) and able (equipped with the necessary vocabulary) to apply the common law in line with the Constitution. It is pivotal that courts apply the reasonableness test correctly, considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, including the broader constitutional values and ideals such as ubuntu. It is arguable that if this were done, nuisance law would have a greater potential to incorporate a wider range of rights, interests and values so that the outcomes would be fairer and more equitable, which is, after all, the goal of the reasonableness standard in neighbour law.

A room with a view in English nuisance law: exploring modernisation hidden within the ‘textbook tradition’

The paper critically examines the consensus among tort scholars that an injured view can never be actionable in nuisance. The consensus, it is argued, is based on a problematic understanding of the permanence of early modern nuisance authority, and a neglect of modernisation in the definition of actionable injury in the nineteenth century, in response to industrialisation, urbanisation and, crucially, suburbanisation. David Sugarman's ‘textbook tradition’ provides a valuable disciplinary explanation for the mismatch between scholarly portrayals of doctrine and authoritative judicial formulations in decided cases.

5. Expanding legal imagination

The creation and operation of environmental law has forced lawyers to reflect upon and develop legal concepts, rules, and principles. This is because environmental law is not confined to the world of contract law in which two parties are legally bound by an agreement—an agreement that manages their legal expectations, obligations, and rights. Legal imagination is needed to develop law to respond to a world of multiple interconnected parties, scientific uncertainty, and socio-political conflict. ‘Expanding legal imagination’ discusses the growth of international environmental law; considers the differences between nuisance law and criminal law; and explains environmental impact assessments as well as legal standing and access to courts.

Nuisance Law, Regulation, and the Invention of Prototypical Pollution Abatement Technology

The emerging idea that the private enforcement of nuisance injunctions can facilitate investment in pollution abatement technology raises important questions of the wider regulatory context of this area of tort. This chapter examines the role of the Alkali Inspectorate historically in facilitating progressive improvements in industrial production process standards to an extent comparable with nuisance law. It is argued that regulation in this field has demonstrably shaped the development of pollution abatement technology, but exceptionally so. The notion of ‘voluntarism’, which tort scholars have used to explain the scope and limits of nuisance law’s inventiveness, can be helpfully generalized. Voluntarism accounts for the success with which government inspectors set out to clean up industry through pushing the frontiers of clean technology, and the difficulties of sustaining this success with the passage of time. This is illustrated by a case study concerning cement industry pollution.

Tate & Lyle : Pure Economic Loss and the Modern Tort of Public Nuisance

Professor Lewis Klar criticizes the Canadian approach to the tort of public nuisance forbeing illogical and incoherent. The authors agree with Klar’s assessment of the current stateof public nuisance law, but argue that insights drawn from the House of Lords decision inTate & Lyle Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council offer a way forward. Byconceptualizing the tort of public nuisance as a cause of action that protects subjects fromsuffering actual loss that is consequential on the violation of their passage and fishing rightsover public property, Tate & Lyle offers a coherent and restrained formulation of the tortof public nuisance. This article examines the Tate & Lyle approach to public nuisance andapplies it to two infamous Canadian public nuisance cases. It concludes that the coherent,logical approach to public nuisance articulated by the House of Lords in Tate & Lyle shouldbe readopted by Canadian courts.