Nuisance (Introduction)

Nuisance is interference to the P's interest over his property & does not necessarily require entry by the D. To succeed the claim of nuisance, the P is generally required to prove special damage. Nuisance is distinguished from negligence. In the case of Wisma Punca Emas Sdn Bhd v Dr Donal, the Supreme court held that negligence is not a requirements in nuisance actions & therefore a P need not prove any negligence in nuisance case. All that is necessarily to prove is special damage which would be damage to his property due to the activities of the D adjoining land.
Nuisance is also different from strict liability. In action for nuisance, generally the interference must be something that is continuous, wheres in an action under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher one single act of interference is sufficient. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies only to case where there has been some special use of land bringing with it increased danger to others.

Damage & remedies.
The harm or damage that usually occurs in nuisance cases are 2 types:
(i) damage to property (easily identifiable)
(ii) interference to personal comfort (specific to the tort of nuisance)
The remedy usually sought in a claim for nuisance is an injunction. ( prevent the nuisance from continuing or monetary compensation which is usually granted for damage to property)
In the case of Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd, it was held that a person injured by a nuisance may bring an action & claim damages for the injury alone together claim for injunction.
-damaged must be proved in action for nuisance for otherwise the action will fail. The damage also must be reasonably foreseeable to arises from the D wrongful conduct.

-Reasonableness - In the case of Syarikat Perniagaan Selangor Sdh Bhd v Fahro Rozi Mohdi & Ors, the court held that a person may use his property in a reasonable way but no one has the right to intense noise just as no one should be asked to put up with such volume which by any reasonable standard becomes a nuisance. So the ordinary use of residential property is not capable of amounting the nuisance...-to be continue..:>