Case Commentary on St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping

This case commentary discusses the landmark case of St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping, which dealt with the principles of nuisance and the law of torts. The case involved a claimant who owned a manor house and land near a copper smelting business, and brought a nuisance action against the defendant for damages caused by their operations. The court held that the principle of locality was not relevant where there was physical damage to property, and that there was no defence of coming to nuisance. The commentary also discusses the broader principles of tort law and the importance of maintaining legality in cases of nuisance.

Applied criminal law

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
Case Commentary ......................................................................................................................3

MAIN BODY
Case Commentary
St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping in this case claimant owned manor house within 1300
acres of land which is situated over short distances from defendant copper smelting business.
Further, he brought a nuisance action against defendant in respect upon making damages caused
by working over their crops, trees and foliage. There are various industrial businesses that is
included in locality and alkali works1. The defendant has been arguing upon use of property
through reasonableness upon given locality which includes Alkali works. The defendant argued
the use of property through an reasonable given locality and makes worker exists before claimant
has been purchasing property. In this case court held that where there is physical damage over
property the locality principle is not relevant in nature. There is no defence which makes
claimant came to nuisance. In the case it has been marked out by Lord Westbury that in the
matters related to this description is very desirable perspective which has been marked over
difference within action brought over nuisance regarding grounds alleged upon nuisance
procedures in relation over material injury over property and action brought for an nuisance upon
ground that the thing alleged to be a nuisance is productive of sensible personal discomfort2.
Also the case it has been regarded that latter, namely over personal inconvenience and
interference with enjoyment upon quitting one's personal freedom. In this discomposes upon
injurious affect the senses or the nerves, whether that may or may not be denominated a
nuisance, must undoubtedly depend greatly on the circumstances of the place where the thing
complained of actually occurs. If a man lives in a town, it is necessary that he should subject
himself to the consequences of those operations of trade which may be carried on in his
immediate locality, which are actually necessary for trade.
The law that has been marked out that within case is related over law of Torts which is an
important law used for controlling day to day perspective of law. Under the law tort has been
covered common law jurisdiction has been covered within civil wrong causing claimant upon
1 'Waugh Syndrome In A Child: A Case Report' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports
and Case Series.
2 'A Case Report Of Right Atrial Cardiac Myxoma' [2021] Journal of Medical Case
Reports and Case Series.

suffering form loss harm resulting in legal liability over person committing tortious act. In the
law aspects regarding infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries,
invasion of privacy, and many other things perspective has been covered. Also law is used for
creating balance within an individual's life. Through law of torts daily aspects has been covered
related to an individual. Then in this nuisance has been covered which is part of class of tort
protected against harm done in relation over property. This makes nuisance through an injury
caused with an unreasonable interference with the usage of land. It is based upon the tort of
trespass, which concerns the physical intrusion on the property of another. It is an important part
of legal system of UK3. The law of tort is considered to be civil wrong but civil wrong cannot be
tort law in any condition. In the case of Ryland v Fletcher it has been observed that defendant
owns mill and constructed reservoir over their land. The reservoir has placed upon disused mine .
Water from reservoir the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to
a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage. In this case court held that
defendant is strictly liable upon making damages caused by non natural use of land. Also the
case has marked out about accumulation of damage which causes damage but appropriate
precautions is not taken in effective manner. These cases has lead upon creating impact of tort
law proved with more effectiveness that makes applicability of law of torts done in practical
manner. This makes all kinds of aspects in regarding legal aspect covered and the case is based
upon law of nuisance which is an important part of law of torts that helps in maintaining legality
of particular case.
3 'Case Report Of A Rare Disease: Melorheostosis' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports
and Case Series.

REFRENCES
Books and Journals
'Case Report Of A Rare Disease: Melorheostosis' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports and
Case Series.
'A Case Report Of Right Atrial Cardiac Myxoma' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports and
Case Series.
'Waugh Syndrome In A Child: A Case Report' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports and Case
Series.
'SLE Induced Neuropsychiatric Manifestations: A Unique Case Report' [2021] Journal of
Medical Case Reports and Case Series.
'Pleomorphic Adenoma Of Palate - A Case Report' [2021] Journal of Medical Case Reports and
Case Series.