However in Hunter v. Canary Wharf the House of Lords stated that the distinction implied the creation of two separate torts.
The interference with use or enjoyment of land of claimant takes place through various ways, which includes adverse affect on negihour's sleep through vibrations and noises (Halsey v Esso Petroleum) and encroachment of roots (Solloway v. Hampshire CC) . The reasonableness of act is considered when determining on possibility of nuisance, so an action for nuisance may fail if found of reasonable use to the community and is of a temporary nature(Harrison v. Southwark). Reasonableness is dependent on variety of factors which include the duration of interference, sensitivity of the plaintiff, character of neighbor hood, and the defendant's fault.
Further the character of the neighbourhood may be a vital factor in case of interference with enjoyment or use. (Sturger v. Bridgman) However it is not important when physical damage to property is sustained. (St. Helens)
Finally the fault on the part of claimant can be found to be strict in certain situation while fault based in others. ...