Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 2 All E.R. 145

C owned and occupied a small terrace house on a residential street. D owned and occupied an oil storage and issuing depôt adjoining the street. In the depôt was a boiler house containing boilers which rarely but consistently emitted noxious acid smuts. These damaged C’s washing and the paintwork of C’s car. An occasional oil smell had been present for many years, but recently the depôt emitted a particularly pungent, nauseating smell in increasing intensity and frequency. In 1956, D introduced a night shift. Since then, the boiler noise carried throughout the night despite efforts to minimise it. This noise, which varied in intensity, at peak caused C’s windows and doors to vibrate, preventing C from sleeping. Furthermore, from November 1956, oil tankers came and went every night. It was possible for D to conduct their operations without any (appreciable) smell, and there was no nuisance by noise by day.

• Could the acid smuts be shown to the cause of damages done to C’s property?
• Was the oil odour a nuisance by smell despite no injury to health resulting from it?
• Was D’s use of the highway in the course of their business constitute a nuisance?

Finding for C, that D were liable in nuisance for damage done by acid smuts emitted from their chimneys, in respect of which C suffered special damage. Injury to health was not required for a nuisance by smell action. Since the pungent smell from time to time emitted went far beyond a triviality and was more than would affect a sensitive person, it was, in view of its frequency, actionable. D were liable for vehicular noise at night as a public nuisance. The concentration of noisy vehicles outside C’s house was an unreasonable use of the highway for which, in the circumstances (in particular that a man was entitled to sleep during the night in his own house) C was entitled to damages and injunctions.

Actionable nuisance may arise from physical deposits, substantial smell or unreasonable noise, but the relevant standards differ with the interference. Loss of amenity does not require proved damage to health. Highway interference may support public nuisance where the claimant suffers the required particular damage.

Halsey is valuable for separating several forms of interference arising from one industrial operation. Acid deposits damaged property, while smells and night noise interfered with ordinary enjoyment of the home. The time of day and residential setting affected the amenity assessment. The case does not make every industrial smell unlawful or require a claimant to prove illness before complaining of serious discomfort. Public and private nuisance should also be distinguished when discussing vehicle movements.