Case Commentary: St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping, Civil Law LLB

This case commentary analyzes the landmark case of St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping (1865), focusing on the tort of nuisance. The commentary summarizes the key facts, including the dispute over smelting operations causing damage to a plaintiff's property, and identifies the legal questions before the court, such as the balance between industrial activity and property rights. It examines the court's decision, where the House of Lords dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the right to enjoy property and the unsuitability of the defendant's actions. The analysis includes the reasoning of Lord Westbury, Lord Cranworth, and Lord Wensleydale, highlighting the importance of reasonable enjoyment of property and the impact on neighborhood relations. The commentary also explores the social and political context, discussing the case's implications for property rights and the duty of care, referencing the importance of neighborly relations and the balance between industrial progress and individual rights. The analysis includes bibliographic references to the case report and relevant secondary sources, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles and their broader implications.

Legal Systems and Methods Law LLB
Running Head: Civil Law 0
1 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 0
Student’s Name

Civil Law 1
Case Commentary
The case selected hereby for the discussion is “St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping”1. The plaintiff
of the case was William tipping and defendants were directors and shareholders of a company
named “St Helen's Smelting Co.” The matter has been dealt with in The House of Lords and the
date 05th July 1865. The lead judges of the case were Lord Westbury Lord Cranworth and Lord
Wensleydale.
Key facts of the case
The plaintiff brought the action of nuisance under Tort Law against the defendant as due to their
work, an injury happened to trees and crops of the plaintiff. There was a short distance of land
purchased by the plaintiff and the place where the defendant used to carry out their work. A
declaration was made against a defendant where it was alleged that the carried out smelting work
near to the land of the plaintiff which caused a large quantity of vapour and other noxious gases
and due to which fruit, trees, herbage and hedges of a plaintiff injured badly. The lead fact of the
case is the defendant's work existed in the locality before the purchase of land by the plaintiff.
The matter has further been addressed by the court.
Key Points of law
In the trial process, the defendant counsel has put three questions before the court to decide
which were whether it was a “required trade”, whether it was a “suitable place and whether the
work has been carried out “reasonably”. Nevertheless, the lead question, which was to be
decided by the board, was related to the enjoyment of the plaintiff's property. Judge asked for the
1 St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping (1865) 11 ER 1483

Civil Law 2
jury that whether due to the actions carried out by the defendant, the right of the plaintiff to enjoy
his property was diminished sensibly or not. Another issue to decide was whether the subjective
direction discussed above was correct. Afterward, the question to decide before the appellant
court was to check whether the directions granted by the learned judge were correct or not2.
Whether a new trial should be granted in this case or not.
The case chosen hereby was the final appeal of the case that was made by the defendant of the
original case i.e. St Helen's Smelting Co.
Analysis of the decision
Three of the judges have raised certain points while reaching up to the decision. Lord Westbury
stated that the plaintiff of the case has purchased the estate in June 1860, whereas the defendant
started smelting operations in the month of September 1860. The work of the defendant caused
injury to the trees and crops of the plaintiff. He further added that the word suitably cannot add
or carry with the consequences that trade brings to the particular locality but with the
consequence that a trade may be an injury to the neighboring property. On these grounds, Lord
Westbury favored the decision of the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.
Lord Cranworth also considered the decision of learned judge correct and favored the decision of
the trial court. He stated that in his opinion, no better decision could be to grant as granted by the
trial court. Lastly, the third judge of appeal i.e. Lord Wensleydale also made his decision in favor
of the plaintiff and sought to dismiss the appeal. He stated that while checking thee reasonability
in any case, the court often ignores small inconvenience and trifling and consider the sensible
2 'St Helen’S Smelting Co V Tipping [1865] UKHL J81 – Law Case Summaries' (Lawcasesummaries.com, 2020)
<https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/st-helens-smelting-co-v-tipping-1865-ukhl-j81/> accessed 12
January 2020.

Civil Law 3
inconvenience, which truly brings hurdle in the enjoyment of someone's property3. Since the
conduct of the defendant truly affected the property right of the plaintiff, hence the appeal of the
defendant was required to be rejected.
Lord Westbury made his focus on the word suitability whereas the Lord Wensleydale focused on
the right of enjoyment of the property. The appeal has been dismissed with cost by the virtue of
majority of votes of judges4.
Social impact
The case is highly relevant in the social context as it was related to neighborhood relations. It
highlighted the responsibility of a neighbor with respect to others. In the decision of the case, it
was given that every person has the right to trade but such right cannot be granted up to the limit
that may destroy other's right of enjoyment of his/her property. The case is significant as it
established the duty of care of a person with respect to nuisance conducted to a neighbor.
3 'St. Helen's Smelting Company V Tipping [1865] UKHL J81 (05 July 1865)' (Bailii.org, 2020)
<https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1865/J81.html> accessed 12 January 2020.
4 (Allanbeever.freehosting.co.nz, 2020) <http://www.allanbeever.freehosting.co.nz/Materials/Nuisance
%2001%20Foundations%20Materials.pdf> accessed 12 January 2020.

Civil Law 4
Bibliography
Cases
St Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping (1865) 11 ER 1483
Other Resources
(Allanbeever.freehosting.co.nz, 2020)
<http://www.allanbeever.freehosting.co.nz/Materials/Nuisance%2001%20Foundations
%20Materials.pdf> accessed 12 January 2020
'St Helen’S Smelting Co V Tipping [1865] UKHL J81 – Law Case Summaries'
(Lawcasesummaries.com, 2020) <https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/st-helens-
smelting-co-v-tipping-1865-ukhl-j81/> accessed 12 January 2020
'St. Helen's Smelting Company V Tipping [1865] UKHL J81 (05 July 1865)' (Bailii.org, 2020)
<https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1865/J81.html> accessed 12 January 2020