hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another." The forms of private nuisances are almost countless, thus resulting in the impossibility of any kind of classification (Putney, 1908).
A person who owns a proprietorship interest in the land in which nuisance is inflicted can sue and succeed to claims. For instance the person must be an owner or a party, or be in special custody or occupation of it like tenant or under a licence to reside. Exceptions to the above rule may also be present as in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf.1
The case of Malone v Laskey2 is an exception of the rule that a licensee can sue. In the mentioned case when the wife of the licensee used the toilet a cistern fell on her head due to the trembling of machinery in the nearby property and she was hurt. But when she claimed it failed because her husband was only a licensee and so it could not be proved that she held a proprietary interest in the land herself. But had this case been occurred now she would have succeeded under negligence. But an exception to this is that the wife of a home owner can sue since she also has a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home Hunter v Canary Wharf. Actually according to law jus tertii meaning right of a third person, is not a good defence to sue in a private nuisance. But if a person is in exclusive possession of the land can sue even if title to it cannot be proved Foster v Warblington.3
Till very lately it was resolved, that the complainant must have an interest in the land so that he could sue in private nuisance. But then in the case of Khorasandijian v. Bush4 it was in particular affirmed that it was no longer suitable to restrict the right to sue by indication to proprietary interest in the land. In this case Lord Dillon said the following…”it is ridiculous if in this present age the law that is the making of deliberately harassing and pestering phone calls to a person is only actionable in the civil courts if a