Elements established the private nuisance

1. Substantial interference
(i) interference with use,comfort & enjoyment of land
(ii)material or physical damage to land or property
2. Unreasonableness

-Consideration must be look before sued the D :
(a) damage & location of the P's premises
(b) public benefit of the D's activities
(c) extraordinary sensitivity on the part of P
(d) interference must be continuous
(e) temporary interference & isolated incident
(f) malice
For this post. I'll discuss only for the element of substantial interference.

Substantial interference.
there are 2 types of damage or interference :
(i) interference with the use,comfort, & enjoyment of his land
(ii) physical damaged to the land

What constitutes substantial interference & actionable in nuisance, differs according to which of the 2 recognized types of damage or interference the P has suffered.

(a)interference with the use,comfort & enjoyment of land.(amenity nuisance)
- feeling discomfort whereby one is unable to live peacefully & comfortably on one's own land arising from the D's activity.
- a trivial interference does not give rise to nuisance.
In the case of Woon Tan Kan (Deceased) & 7 Ors v Asian Rare Earth, the P (residents of Bukit Merah) alleged that the activities from the factory produced dangerous radioactive gases harmful to the residents of Bukit Merah. The High Court granted a quia timet injunction & held that the tort of private nuisance was established.
Besides, in the case of Dato Dr Hrnam Singh v Renal Link (KL) Sdn Bhd, the P had for 18 years operated a clinic & hospital for the treatment of ear,nose & throat aliments. The D operated a renal clinic which patients receive haemodialysis on the floor above the P's clinic. The D was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped downwards into the P's clinic.

(b) material of physical damaged to land or property
Case : Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell
-the court held that minor subsidence on the P's land was not actionable
A clear example of substantial interference is found in the case of Goh Chat Ngee & Ors v Toh Yan & Anor, the mining activities constituted an unnatural use of land, as water had escaped & flooded the P's land causing it to collapse & sink, subsequently causing flooding,erosion & settlement. The court held that a landowner (with adjacent to P's land) had a Common Law obligation not to interfere with the support structure of his neighbours land, which is provided for under s.44 (1)(b) National Land Code. The D had breached this statutory duty & was also liable in nuisance with the use & enjoyment of his neighbour's land..:>